The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh at Srinagar set aside an order dated 30 December 2024 passed by the Municipal Magistrate (1st Civil Subordinate Judge), Srinagar, which had summarily dismissed an application under Section 151 CPC seeking restoration of an iron gate allegedly removed in violation of an interim order. The High Court held that the trial court’s order was cryptic and lacked judicial reasoning, constituting a failure of legal duty. The matter was remanded for fresh consideration. Additionally, the High Court directed that the Presiding Officer be sent to the Judicial Academy for a refresher course.
Case Background
The petitioners, residents of Umarabad HMT, Srinagar, claimed to be lawful owners in possession of their residential houses with a common private pathway (kocha). They contended that an iron gate had existed at the entrance of this pathway since before 2009. According to the petitioners, the gate was removed on 20 October 2024 by officials of the Srinagar Municipal Corporation (SMC) under the alleged influence of a local land mafia, despite an interim restraining order dated 24 October 2024.
The petitioners filed an application under Section 151 CPC before the trial court, seeking a direction to restore the iron gate as part of their proprietary land and prayed for a status quo ante order. The application emphasized their right to privacy and property and claimed that the demolition was carried out without due process or notice.
Arguments Before the High Court
The petitioners challenged the trial court’s dismissal of their application on multiple grounds, including:
- Non-consideration of the interim order dated 24 October 2024.
- Dismissal without issuing notice or inviting objections from the respondents.
- Mechanical and cryptic order without legal reasoning.
- Misapplication of judicial discretion and violation of natural justice.
Observations of the High Court
Justice Vinod Chatterji Koul criticized the trial court’s order for lacking any meaningful discussion or reasoning. The trial court had simply stated, “For the reasons stated in the order of the application IA/3, the application also lacks merit and is therefore dismissed.” The High Court held this was not a valid judicial determination.
Quoting precedent and legal theory, the High Court reaffirmed that:
“Recording of reasons in support of conclusions arrived at in a judgment or order by the Courts… has been recognized since very inception of system.”
The Court emphasized that unreasoned or cryptic orders undermine judicial legitimacy and violate the principles of fair adjudication.
Citing Hindustan Times Ltd. v. Union of India [(1998) 2 SCC 242], M/s Shree Mahavir Carbon Ltd. v. Om Prakash Jalan [2013 (12) SCC 653], and Union Public Service Commission v. Bibhu Prasad Sarangi [AIR 2021 SC 2396], the High Court reiterated that orders must disclose the judicial mind and provide justifying reasons.
Decision
The High Court allowed the petition, set aside the impugned order of 30 December 2024, and directed the trial court to consider the petitioners’ application under Section 151 CPC afresh, after hearing both parties and inviting objections from the respondents.
In an unusual step, the Court also ordered:
“The Presiding Officer, who has passed order impugned, needs to be sent/deputed to J&K Judicial Academy for refreshment course.”
The Registry was directed to place a copy of this order before the Hon’ble Chief Justice for appropriate action.
