High Court · 2025

Petition under section 15'l cPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High court may be pleased to stay all further proceedings in F.c.o.P.No.557 o2O21 on the file of learned Additional Family Judge, Rangareddy District at LB Nagar, pending the disposal of revision petition. Counsel for the Petitioner: SRI MADIRAJU PRABHAKAR RAO Counsel forthe Respondent: SRI RAPOLU BHASKAR The Court made the following: ORDER ...:. ':).' -1?a-v/ / HON'BLE SIU IUSTICE LAXMI NARAYAN/ ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.2O9 LIF 2025 ORDER: Heard Ms. O.Ramaa Swetha, learned courr;el for petitioner rrrrd Sli Rapolu lll-raskar, learned counsel for respo rclcnt

2. This Re'rision is filed assailing the c{ot.<t:t orcler dated

07.01.2025 in I r'r.No.]255 of 2I24 in FCOP No.55i of 2027 passed by the Additi,xal Family Judge, Ranga Rc lrly District at L.B.Ntrgar, rt,hcreby ancl whcre under applica ion filcd under Scction 151 of C ?C n,as allor,r,ec'l

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent he.rein has filecl F-.C.O.P No.557 <tf 2021 against the petitioncr hercin seeking divorce by tli,;solving the marriage of tlre petitioner and respondent ancl evidence on both sides cornpletc,l ctflci the matter is coming up fol arguments. At that stage, respon.lcnt herein fited application to rcopen the evidence of petitioner lr r tht: purpose of receiving certajn documents. Petitioner hercirr filed cou\$f resisting the application, however, the trail Cour I oldc irnpugned I I J order clated 07.01 .2025 allowed the application. -i LNA, J CRP No.209 oJ 2025 2 4 Aggrieved by the impugned docket order, dated 07.01.2025, the present revision is filed. 5 Learned counsel for the petitioner principally contended that entire evidence was concluded on both sides and the matter was coming up for arguments and at that stage, respondent filed an application to reopen the evidence of the respondent herein for recalling the evidence of P.W.1 for the purpose of receiving certain documents. She would further submit that the documents sought to be taken on record are not relevant for adjudication of the matter/ however, the trial Court allowed the application by a cryptic order without any reasoning and without any findings on the objections raised by the petitioner in the counter affidavit and finally prayed to allow the revision

6. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent would submit that the documents sought to be taken on record are crucial and necessary for proper adjudication of the matter as the petitioner admitted in her cross-examination that the property, which was involved in Exs.P13 to P17, does not belong to her, however, she i I $ I I I 3 LNA, J CRP No.2O9 of2025 herseif executed the above said documents anc ir-r fact, the trial Court has recorded that several contentions hat e been raised by thc petitioner and on due consideration o .'crall facts and circumstances, the trial Court has rightly aliowe cl the application ancl finally, prayed to dismiss the Revision. 7 . This Cou::t gave its earnest consideration to the submissions made bv the learned counsel for both the partie: and perused the entire material available on record.

8. Perusal oI the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 would show that the trial (lourt has not discussed the gror uds and reasons basing on wl-rir:h application was filed to reopc r the evidence of respondent herein for recalling the evidence rf P.W.1 for the purpose of receiving the certain documents. Tl-e trial Court has also not discus,sed the objections raised by the petitioner herein opposing the application, except saying that it is jrst and necessary to allow the petition to reopen the evidence of LW.1 for marking of documents. The impugned order reads as under: ._._. "Since I.A.No.1253 of 2024 is allowed reralling P.W.1, hence tl'ris Court is inclined to allow the preser Lt petition as i I I l i i I I I I I I I I I 4 LNA, J CRP No.20lof 2025 'q prayed for. Therefore, it is just and necessary to allow this petition to reopen thc evidence of PW.1 for marking of documents."

9. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is crypLic and is bereft of reasons. The trial Court failed to discuss whether the documents sought to be taken on record are necessary for adjudication of the matter and whether sufficiellt reasons have been shown for filing tl're application belatedly that too wl.ren the matter was coming up for argumerlts

10. In a catena of judgments, the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts held that any order passed by a Court or a quasi-judicial authority or a Tribunal shall record reasons for its conclusions.

11. In Kranti Associates a. Masood Ahmed Khanl, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, after considering various judgments, formulated certain principles which are set out below:- "(a) In India the judicial trend has ahvays been to record reasons, even in administrativc decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. ' (2010) 9 scc 496 5 LA'A. J CRP No.20, of 2025 (b) A quasr-judicial authority must record reasons in support ol its conclusions. (c) lnsi:;tencc on recording of reasons is meanl t() serve the u,idcr plinciplc of justice that justice must n()t on r be rlouc it must also irppcar to be done as weli. (cl) Rccrrding of reasons also operates as a r': Iirl restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and q rasi-judicial or even aclninistrative power. (e) Rea:;ons reassure that discretion has been r rcrcised by the r-lecision makcr on relcvant grounds and bJ, ( isregarding cxtraneous considcrations. (1) Rca,;ons havc t,irtuallv become as indi: pt,nsablc a conlponc,r'li of a dccision making proccss a: obscrving principles of natural justice by juclicial, quasi-judic :rl ancl cvcn bv acLn irris lra tir,e botlics. (g) I{ca;ons facilitate the process of juclicial rcview by superior co u rts. (h) 'flro ,rrrgoing juciicial trend in all countries cr rnmittecl to lule of lar., and cor.rstitutional governance is ir lavour of rtasoned decisions bascd on relevant facts. 'l'his is virtually the lifc Lrloocl of juclicial dccision-making jus ifying tho principle that rcason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or e\rcr1 quasi-judicial opinions thc: i. davs can be as ciifiercnt as thc juclges and authorities who clt liver thcm. Al[ these dccisions serve one corrunon purpose rvhich is to demonstrahr Lrv reasor-r that the relevant factors h.rve been ob.iectivclv considercd. This is important for sus aining the litigants' I.ai Jr in the justice delii,ery system. O Insish:nce on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountabi lity and transparency. (k) If a udgc or a quasi-judicial authority is rot candid enough abtrut his/her decision-making process ihen it is irnpossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedcnt or to principles of incremc rtalism. 6 LNA, J CRP h'o.20lof202s ) (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogcnt, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be cquated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubtcd that transparcncy is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparencl, in decision-making not only makcs the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny (See David Shapiro in Dcfcnce of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-737) ; (n) Since thc requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the saicl requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was consiclered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. Soc Ruiz Toriia v. Spain (1,994) 1,9 EHRR 553 at 5(r2 para 29 ancl Anya r.. Univcrsity of Oxford [2001] EWCz\ Civ 405, wherein the court refcrred to articlc 6 of European Convcntiou of Human Rights which requires, 'adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decision.' (o) In all common law jurisdictions iudgments play a vital rolc in setting up precedcnts for thc future. 'l herefore, for development of law, requircment of giving rcasons for the clecision is of the essence and is virtually a part of 'ciur: process'." Following thc principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates (one cited supra), the High Court of Gujarat in Agganoal Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. State of Guj arat and others2 observed as under:- "At the outset, we notice that it is settlecl legal position of law that reasons are heart and soul of the order and non communication of same itself amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, resulting in rniscarriage of iustice. This court is bound by the said judgments hercinafter referred to. 'z 2022 scibnfine Guj 2530 w 1 LNA, J CRP No.20lof202s Thc neces';ity of giving reason by a body or , uthority in support or its decision camc for consideration before the Supreme (irurt in several cases. Initially, the Sul r'eme Court rccognizcLl a sort of demarcation between trtl ninistrative orclers anrl rluasi- judicial orclcrs but with thc Pas;age of time the rlistinction between the two got blurrcd ancl .hinncd out and virtuallv reached a vanishing point in the jutll ment of the Supreme (-oult in A. K. Kralpak v. Union of [n 1i.r (7970) 7 SCR 45. 'fhc hor.rourable Supreme Court vide iudg ncnts in the cases of liavi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Col]c:tor Raigad (2012) 4 S[]Cl 407, Sant Lal Gupta v. Moderrr .iooperativc Cloup Hc,using Societv Limited (2010) 13 SCC 136; Kranti Associates Private Limited r,. Masood Ahmcd Kl,an (2010) 9 SCC 496 arrd Abclul Ghaffar v. State of Bihar (200.s I 3 fC 258, lras expantlerl thc horizon of natural justice ancl r rasons havc been treah:d part of the t.ratural justice. It has lone to thc cxtent il1 h,rlcling thal rcasons arc heart ancl sttul r>l the order."

12. Tl.rus, th,-' 1-rosition of law that emerges f om the decision mentioned abo,,re is that assignment of reasons is imperative in natlrre and tht- spr'aking ordel cloctrine manda cs assigning the reason which is thc heart and soul of the decision

13. ln the instarrt case, the trial Court has evidt- ttly not adverted to the contentir,ns set out in the affidarrit, filed in support of the I I aforesaid applir:ation, as well as the contentions raised by the petitioner therein in the counter and allowed tl e application by , , way of a cryptit three line order.

14. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble ! upreme Court in Kranti Associttes (supra) and thc judgment of tlre High Court of CRP No.209 of 202s G LNA, J 8 Gujarat in Aggarutal Dyeing and printing Works (supra), ir has to be held that the reasons, which are trre rreart and soul of the order, are obviously missing in the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 is unsustainable in the eye of law.

15. Accordingly, the Civil Revision petitio. is alrowed arrcl the impugned docket order dated 07.O1.2OZS passed by the trial Court in I.A.No.1255 of 2024 in FCop No.557 of 2027 is ser aside and the matter is rernanded back to the trial Court for fresh disposar on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, uninfluencecl bv any observations made by this Court in this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed. To, ,,TRUE COPY'/ sd/- c NAGABHUSHAMBA EPUTY REGTSTRAR SECTION OFFICER

1. The Additional Family Judge, Rangareddy District at L.B Nagar 2. OneCC to SRl. MADIRAJU PRABHAKAR RAO Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to SRl. RAPOLU BHASKAR Advocate [OPUC]

4. Two CD CoPies TPI</gh HIGH COURT DATED:1 310612025 ./:'a-(. ..1 '.,,'- i '';.ii 'j,\. !, 2 0 :iip 2025 ORDER GRP.No.209 of 2025 CIVIL REVISION PETITION IS AI-LOWED