- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7701 WP No. 11736 of 2021 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 11736 OF 2021 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: MRS. STEPHANIA MARIA PINTO NEE D’SOUZA W/O LATE STEPHEN NICOLAS PINTO, ALIAS STEVEN PINTO, AGED ABOUT 81 YEARS, C/O SHARLET MISQUITH, R/AT 141, PALISIDE DR. FREEHOLD, NJ 07728, BY HER G.P.A.HOLDER, MS IDA D’SOUZA, D/O LATE ALBERT D’SOUZA, R/AT D NO.8-144/1, KANILA MUGILA HOUSE, MALALI POST, THENKULIPADY, MANGALURU TALUK-574 165. DAKSHINA KANNADA. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DHEERAJ., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. RICHARD LOBO S/O LATE GREGORY LOBO, AGED ABOUT 65 YEARS, R/AT KAJILA HOUSE, MALALI POST, THENKULIPADY, MANGALURU TALUK-574 165. DAKSHINA KANNADA. 2. MRS. FLORINA WINNE LOBO W/O RICHARD GREGORY LOBO, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7701 WP No. 11736 of 2021 R/AT GREEN GOLD KAJILA HOUSE MALALI POST, THENKULIPADY, MANGALURU TALUK-574 165. DAKSHINA KANNADA. 3. ANIL SIMON D’CUNHA S/O LATE VICTOR D’CUNHA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/AT “JOSILA”, BEHIND CORDEL CHURCH, KULASHEKAR, MANGALURU-575 005. DAKSHINA KANNADA. 4. VENESSA PINTO D/O STEPHEN NICHOLAS PINTO, AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS, R/AT F-0 CD GOODEARTH, DONGORWADDO FATORDA MARGAO, GOA-403 602. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SANATHKUMAR., ADVOCATE R1(A TO D), R2 & R3-SERVED) THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO-INTERFERE WITH THE COMMON ORDER DTD 17.04.2021 AT ANNX-A ON I.A.XIV TO XVI IN O.S.NO.1438/2016 ON THE FILE OF I ADDL. CIVIL JUDGE, MANGALURU BY SETTING ASIDE ORDER ASIDE AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition seeks to challenge an order dated 17.04.2021 passed in O.S.No.1438/2016 by learned I Addl. Civil Judge, Mangaluru (hereinafter referred as - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7701 WP No. 11736 of 2021 ‘Impugned Order’). By the Impugned Order the three applications I.A.14 for re-opening the case for further evidence of plaintiff; I.A.No.15 for directing the defendant No.1 and 2 to produce on oath the original sale deed dated 09.12.1974 and original General Power of Attorney dated 11.01.2011; and I.A.No.16 for summoning the documents from the Sub-Registrar, Mangalore Taluk and Mangalore Prathaika Sahakari Krishi and Gramina Abhivridhi Bank Ltd. have been dismissed by the learned Trial Court. 2. Respondent No.1(a) to (d) and to Respondent No.2 have already been served. while Respondent No.3 is the subsequent purchaser. The record reflects that Respondent No.3 is served. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Respondent No.4 is the Plaintiff No.1 before the learned Trial Court and is a non-contesting party. None appears for these contesting respondents despite service. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7701 WP No. 11736 of 2021 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that it is his case that the Petitioner/Plaintiff No.2 and Respondent No.4/Defendant had filed a suit for declaration and injunction seeking the relief of declaration of General Power of Attorney dated 11.01.2011 and Settlement Deed dated 15.04.2011 be declared as void and unenforceable and not binding on the plaintiffs. During the course of proceedings, the executant of this General Power of Attorney and Settlement Deed has passed away. However, in order to prove his case, the petitioner/plaintiff has placed on record the certified copies of these documents. He filed an application to summon the Sub-Registrar to bring these documents (I.A.No.16) for directions to Defendant Nos.1 and 2 to produce these documents that is the original Sale Deed and original General Power of Attorney (I.A.No.15). He submits that learned Trial Court without examining these applications has passed a non- speaking order dismissing all three applications. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7701 WP No. 11736 of 2021 4. As stated above, none has appeared for the respondents despite service. 5. Given the pendency of the matter and the fact that stay of proceedings was granted by this Court on 05.07.2021, this Court deems it apposite to hear and decide the matter today. 6. The Impugned Order has been passed on three applications: While I.A.No.14 prayed for re-opening the case for further evidence of plaintiff, I.A.No.15 prayed that Defendant No.1 and 2 may be called upon to produce on oath the original sale deed dated 09.12.1974 and original General Power of Attorney dated 11.01.2011 and I.A.No.16 prayed for summoning the documents from the Sub-Registrar, Mangalore Taluk and Mangalore Prathaika Sahakari Krishi and Gramina Abhivridhi Bank Ltd. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7701 WP No. 11736 of 2021 The entire case of the petitioner is based on the fact that the signature of the original title holder of the property was forged by Defendant Nos.1 and 2. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that the Impugned Order does not give specific findings for rejection of each application. He further submits that in view of the fact that the issues have been framed in the matter and evidence on record, it was necessary that these applications be examined individually. 8. The Impugned Order so far as concerns I.A.No.15, has given a finding that since the title holder Stephen Pinto is no longer alive, the application is not requisite. The Impugned Order is bereft of any findings as to why I.A.No.16 should not have been allowed which is summoning of records from Sub-Registrar office. 9. Three separate applications filed by the petitioner/plaintiff. The learned Trial Court has however passed a one paragraph order deciding the three - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7701 WP No. 11736 of 2021 applications together without examining each application and passing orders thereon since the prayers in these applications although interlinked were separate. 10. It is settled law that any order of a Court must contain findings. The Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta1 has held that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that reasons are provided in the order so as to introduce clarity in the order indicating the application of mind thereby avoiding arbitrariness in the decision. It was held that the failure to give reasons amounts to a denial of justice. The relevant extract is reproduced below:- "8. "5. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief. in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the [High Court's judgment] not sustainable. 6. Even in respect of administrative orders. Lord Denning. M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engg. Union [(1971) 2 QB 175: (1971) 2 WLR 742: (1971) 1 All ER 1 (2009) 12 SCC 609 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7701 WP No. 11736 of 2021 1148 (CA)] observed: (WLR p. 750 G). 'The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration. In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree [1974 ICR 120] it was observed: Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at.' Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the 'inscrutable face of the sphinx', it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking-out. The inscrutable face of a sphinx is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." [Emphasis supplied] 11. The proposition of law that reasoning is required to be given in judicial pronouncements and by authorities, even for quasi-judicial decisions has been discussed in detail in the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7701 WP No. 11736 of 2021 Kranti Associates (P) Ltd. & Anr. vs. Masood Ahmed Khan & Ors.2. The relevant extract is set out below: "47. Summarising the above discussion, this Court holds: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decisionmaker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision- making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. 2 (2010) 9 SCC 496 - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7701 WP No. 11736 of 2021 (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or "rubber-stamp reasons" is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor [(1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37].) (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain [(1994) 19 EHRR 553] EHRR, at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)], wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, "adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions". (0) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of "due process"." [Emphasis supplied] 12. In view of the aforegoing discussions and the fact that the Impugned Order is bereft of findings, this Court deems it apposite to set aside the same. - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7701 WP No. 11736 of 2021 13. The parties shall appear before the learned Trial Court on 02.03.2026. The learned Trial Court will examine these applications and pass an order on all these applications in accordance with law. 14. The petition is allowed on the aforegoing terms. All pending applications stand closed. Sd/- (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE SNB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA