'Classic Instance Of Abdication Of Judicial Duty': Madhya Pradesh High Court Pulls Up Trial Court For Passing Non-Speaking Order

The Madhya Pradesh High Court has strongly criticized the Trial Court for passing a non-speaking order while dismissing multiple applications by a party including those for substitution of parties (under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC) on the ground of absence of the party and its counsel. In doing so the high court observed that the trial court had "prima facie committed an illegality" by passing a non-speaking order demonstrating a classic instance of abdication of judicial duty.The petition challenged a trial court order of April 21, 2025, claiming that the applications were rejected due to his and his counsel's absence. He also claimed that the Trial Court passed the order without hearing the case on merit and in 'a clerical manner'. The Trial Court, in its order, noted that the petitioner and his counsel were not present in court while observing the disorganized state of the case files. Therefore, the Trial Court had directed the petitioner to appear on the next date at 12:00 noon.However, on the next date of hearing, neither the petitioner nor his counsel appeared and so the Trial Court rejected the applications without granting an opportunity to be heard.The Trial Court, in the impugned order, stated, "In this case, many such applications are pending which are yet to be resolved but the file is completely disorganized and the plaintiff himself is not present whereas both the parties were directed to appear on the next date at 12:00 noon and present their side on the applications...Since the plaintiff is not present and it is already 1:55 pm, in such a situation all the applications filed on behalf of the plaintiff are dismissed without hearing them on merits". Justice Alok Awasthi, criticizing such conduct by the Trial Court, opined;"Perusal of the impugned order reveals that prima facie an illegality has been committed by the Trial Court. He has passed a non-speaking order, which demonstrates a classic instance of abdication of judicial duty. It is the duty of the Court staff to properly arrange the file and the Presiding Officer ought to have control over the Court staff. It cannot be a reason for rejecting the applications of any party. It is not the fault of the party that Court's file is not arranged properly"The bench quashed the order and directed the Trial Court to decide all the pending applications on their own merit and after granting the petitioner an opportunity to be heard. It said:"Accordingly, the impugned order dated 21.04.2025 is quashed. The Trial Court is directed to decide all the pending applications on their own merits after perusing the record and giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order". Case Title: Parameshwari Developers Pvt Ltd v Suresh and Others (MP-5129-2025)Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (MP) 193For Petitioner: Advocate Utkarsh JoshiFor State: Government Advocate Mradula SenClick here to read/download Order

'Classic Instance Of Abdication Of Judicial Duty': Madhya Pradesh High Court Pulls Up Trial Court For Passing Non-Speaking Order

Jayanti Pahwa

Tags