- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:565 WP No. 52917 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU WRIT PETITION NO. 52917 OF 2018 (GM-CPC) BETWEEN: SRI.P.S.KRISHNAKUMAR, S/O LATE P.V.SHANKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, R/AT SANNAIAH STREET, PERIYAPATNA TOWN, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 107. …PETITIONER (BY SRI.ASHWIN PRABHU., ADVOCATE FOR SRI.A.MADHUSUDHANA RAO.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SMT.P.S.MANJULA, W/O LATE PRASAD, D/O LATE P.V.SHANKARAIAH, R/AT KUPPE VILLAGE, CHUNCHANAKATTE HOBLI, K.R.NAGAR TALUK, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 106. 2. SRI.P.S.SRIDHARA S/O LATE P.V.SHANKARAIAH, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, R/AT SANNAIAH STREET, PERIYAPATNA TOWN - 571 107. - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:565 WP No. 52917 of 2018 3. BRANCH MANAGER LIC OF INDIA K.R.NAGAR BRANCH, MYSORE DISTRICT - 571 106. 4. SMT.T.A.SHILPA W/O P.S.SREEDHARA R/AT CONVENT ROAD, ADJACENT TO EDIGARA BEEDI, PERIYAPATNA TOWN - 571 107. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.RAJASHEKAR.K FOR R3.,ADVOCATE; V/O/D: 29.08.2019, NOTICE TO R1 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TOQUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.9.2018 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE AND JMFC, PERIYAPATNA ON I.A.NOS.13 AND 14 IN O.S.NO.129/2013 AT ANNEXURE-H AND ALLOW THIS WRIT PETITION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE TARA VITASTA GANJU ORAL ORDER 1. The present petition has been filed seeking to challenge the order dated 11.09.2018 passed in O.S.No.129/2013 by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Periyapatna on I.A.No.XIII andI.A.No.XIV (hereinafter referred to as "Impugned Orders"). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:565 WP No. 52917 of 2018 By this Impugned Orders, two applications filed by petitioner/ plaintiff came to decided; (i) I.A.No.XIII under Order VIII Rule 9 R/w Section 151 of CPC;and (ii) I.A.No.XIV under Order VII Rule 14 R/w Section 151 of CPC were rejected by the learned Trial Court. 2. The record reflects that respondents1 and 4 have refused service on 06.02.2019 and 20.06.2025 respectively. 3. So far as respondent No.3, learned counsel for respondent No.3 is present today. However, he submits that he is not a contesting respondent. 4. So far as respondent No.2 is concerned, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that service has been taken out on respondent No.2 on five occasions and on each time on each date, he remains unserved. He also points out that respondent No.4 Smt.T.A.Shilpa is the wife of respondent No.2. He submits that noting on the envelope that addressee not found cannot be correct because essentially respondent No.4 is the wife of respondent No.2 and is residing with respondent No.4 only. Thus, he submits that respondents are merely evading service. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:565 WP No. 52917 of 2018 5. This Court has examined the notings with the registry. The report of the registry dated 05.01.2026,says that respondent No.2 is not found in the address. The petitioner clearly shows the efforts to serve the respondents for the last eight years. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that suit before the learned Trial Court is also not proceeding and hence, service to respondent No.2 be taken as served. He further submits that in any event, respondent No.4 is the main contesting respondent, who is already served. 7. In addition, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that he presses only his challenge to that portion of the Impugned Order which rejects his application under Order VII Rule 14 of CPC. 8. This Court has examined the Impugned Order. As stated above, the Impugned Order primarily gives reasons and findings for the rejection of application under Order VIII Rule 9 of CPC, which findings are not being challenged by the petitioner. However, so far as it concerns to findings on I.A.No.XIV filed under Order VII Rule 14 CPC, only a one line - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:565 WP No. 52917 of 2018 finding has been given by the learned Trial Court which reads as follows: "Consequently I.A.No.XIV filed under Order 7 Rule 14 R/w Section 151 of CPC also stands REJECTED." 9. It is settled law that the findings are required to be given by Courts in judicial and quasi judicial proceedings, as the given reasons is not only a salutary practice but an essential component of the rule of natural justice ensuring transparency, preventing, arbitrariness and enabling effective appellate review of decision making process. 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 Gupta1has 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:- 1 (2009) 12 SCC 609 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:565 WP No. 52917 of 2018 “11. It is settled law that reasons must be given for every judgment passed by a Court. The Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation vs. Jagdish Prasad Gupta 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 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 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: - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:565 WP No. 52917 of 2018 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] - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:565 WP No. 52917 of 2018 10.1. 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 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 2 (2010) 9 SCC 496 - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:565 WP No. 52917 of 2018 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. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:565 WP No. 52917 of 2018 (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 - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:565 WP No. 52917 of 2018 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] 11. In view of what is stated above and given the fact that no findings have been given on I.A.No.XIV, the impugned order to the extent as reproduced in Paragraph 8,is set-aside. The learned Trial Court is directed to examine the application afresh and pass a reasoned speaking order. Both parties will have liberty to raise all contentions before the Trial Court. 12. The Writ Petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. All pending applications stand closed. (TARA VITASTA GANJU) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3 Digitally signed by TARA VITASTA GANJU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNTAKA