The High Court · 2025

1. Karnati Srinivas Reddy, S/o Ram fteddy, Aged about 56 years, Occ- Branch Post Master.

2. Karnati Rukma Reddy, S/o Anantha Reddy aged about 65 years, Occ- Retired Teacher / Agriculture All are resident of Godal village Balmoor Mandal, Nagarkurnool District. AND Karnatr Hymavathi. W/o Jangi Reddy Aged about 58 years Occ- Agriculture R/o Godal vrllage of Balmoor Mandal of Nagarkurnool District. ... Petitioners/Defendants ...Respondent lA NO: 1 OF 2025 Petition unde. Section 151 of CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to suspend the orders passed in l.A. No. 768 of 2024 in O.S. No.6 of 2020 dated 0910112025 on the file of Junior Civil Judge, At Achampet. in the interest of justice. Counsel for the Petitioners: SRI K ANTHONY REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: SRI G ANANDAM The Court made the following: COMMON ORDER a -- ,i THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITIONN os.776 &, LO42 of 2o25 COMMON ORDER; C.R.P.No.776 of 2025 is filed assailing Order dated

09.0L.2O25 in I.A.No.769 of 202,1 in O.S.No.6 ot 2O2O, passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge, at Achampet, rvherein and r.l,hereby the application filed by the respondent under Ordcr 9 Rule 9 of CPC, was allowed.

2. C.R.P.No. 1042 of 2025 is filed assailing order dated

09.O1.2025 in I.A.No.768 of 2024 in O.S.No.6 of 2O2O, passcd b-'- the learned Junior Civil Juci14e, at Achampet, whercin and r.r,hereby the application filed by the respondent undcr Scction 5 of the Limitation Act, rvas allowed.

3. Since the issue in both the revision pctitions is interconnected and the result is interdependent, both thesc petitions are heard together ancl are being disposed of by a Common Order.

4. Heard Sri K.Anthony Reddy, learned counsel for thc petitioners and Sri G.Anandarn, learned counsel for the rcspondent.

5. Bricf facts of the case which led to filing of the present revision petitions are that respondent herein has filed a suit .\. \ T* I .!- uide O.S.No.6 of 2O2O, against petitioners seeking perpetual injunction in respect of the suit schedule property; that petitioners entered appearance and filed written statement and the matl.er was coming up for respondent/ plaintiffs evidence. Since the respondent/ plaintiff failed to adduce evidence, suit was dismissed lor delault on 29.O2.2O24; that respondent filed an appli<;ation uide I.A.No.769 of 2024, for setting aside the Order dated 29.02.2024 and to restore the suit, along with the application uide 1.A.No.768 of 2024, to condone the delay of 214 days in lrling the application to set aside the Order dated

29.O2.2024.

6. 'l'he trial Court allowed both the applications uide separate Orders dated 09.01.2025. Aggrieved by the said Orders, present revision petitions are filed.

7. Learr.red Counsel for petitioners would submit that as per the impugned Order, notice sent to petitioner No.1 rvas returned as'refused'and in so far as petitioner No.2, no notice was given and accord ing to thc impugned Order notice was seryed on petitioner No.2 through WhatsApp', which is not a proper mode of notice. Hr: further submitted that the trial Court failed to see whether thr: notice was scrved to petitioner No.2 through 'WhatsApp' i-rs contemplated by Rule 82-A(xi) of the Civil Rules of Practicc of Circular Orders. 1990. He also submitted that as per abovc rule, whenever a person refuses notice, the Proccss Server has to draw the Geographical positioning system, location of the place where he attempted the service and his rcport should also contain attestation by a respectable person of the locality, but in the present case no such procedure has been followcd and thus, the version of the respondent that notice was scrviced is incorrect. Therefore, prayed to allow the revision petitions.

8. Per Contra, learned Counsel for the respondent would submit th:rt petitioner No.l refused to receive notice and the notice in so far as petitioner No.2 is concerned, Counsel for the respondent before the trial Court has sent notice through WhatsApp'and the same was considered to be proper and the trial Court has rightly allowed the applications, since there was no counter on behalf of petitioners herein. He further submitte d that condonation of delay of 214 days is formal and that no grounds are made out to interfere with the impugned Ctrder and the pctitioners h:rve filed the present revision petitions on hyper technical grounds, which cannot be considered by this Court under Article 227 of tlrre Constitution of India. Therefore, prayed to dismiss the revision pelitions.

9. Pcrusal of the impugned Orders would disclose that the trial Court allowecl thc applications rvith an observation that l - contents of the petitions were peruscd .lnd therefore, consider:ng the facts and circumstances o[ the case, the petitions are allou,ed. Except one singie line, no other reason was assigned by the triat Court while allowing the' applications. I O. In a catena of judgmcnts, the Hon'ble Apex Court and various High Courts held that any order passcd l.ry a Court or a quasi-judicial authority or a Tribunal shall record reasons for its conclusions. 1 1. ln Krqnti Associates u. Masood Ahmed Khanl, the Hon'ble Supreme Court, aftcr considering various j udgments, formulated certain principles which are set out below:- "(a) In htdio the judk'ial trend has alusay s been to record reasons, euen in administratiue decisions, if such decisions affect angone prejudiciaLlg. (b) A quasi-judicial authoitA must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serue the uider pinciple of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as u-tell. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as o ualid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or euen odministratiue pouer. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised bg the decision maker on releuant grounds and bg disregarding extroneous consid erations. 1 (2010) 9 scc .196 A Reasons haue uirtuallA become as itdispensable a componen-t of a decision making process as obseruing pinciples of natural justice bg judicial, quasi-judicial and euen by adtninistratiue bodie s. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial reuiew by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all counties committed to rule of law and constitutional goueftLatTce is in fauour of reasoned deckions based on releuant facts. This is uirtually the hfe blood of judicial decision-making justifuing tlrc pinciple that reason is th.e soul of justice. (i) Judicial or euen quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliuer them. All these decisions serue one common purpose uhich is to demonstrate bg reason that the releuant factors haue been objectiuelg considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' fctith in the justice deliuery system. (j) lnsistence on reason is a requirement for both judiciol accountabilitg and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authoritg is not candid enough about his/ her decision-making process then it is impossible to knou uthether the person deciding is faithful to the doctine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. lrf Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'ntbber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated u.tith a u alid de cision-making proce s s. (m) It carutot be doubted that transparencg is tLrc sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial pou)ers. Trantsparencg in decision-making not onlg makes the judges and decision makers less prone to er-rors but also makes them subject to broader scrutirty (See Dauid Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 10O Haruard Law Reuiew 731-737); (n) Since tlrc requirement to record reasons emenates from the broad doctine of fairness in - 6 decision-making, the said requirement is nou uirtuallg a component of human rights an'rd utas cons[dered part of Strasbcurg Juisprudence. See Ruiz Torija u. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553 cn 562 para 29 and Anga u. Uniuersity of Oxford [2001] EWCA Ciu 4O5, wherein the court referred to article 6 of European Conuention of Human Rights tuhich requires, 'adequate and intelligent reasons ntttst be giuen for judicial decision. (o) In all common lau; juisdictions judgrnents plaA a uital role in setting up precedents for the futrtre. Therefore, -for deuelopment of laut, requirement of giuing reasons for the decision is of the essence and is uirtuall,J a part of 'due process'.'

12. Follow.ing the principlcs laid down b-y tl-rc Hor-r'ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associcf,es (onc cited supra), the Higlr Court o1' Gujarat in Aggarwal Dgeing and Printing Works Vs. State of Qujdrdt and others2 observed as under:- "At the outset, ue notice thnt it is settled legal position of lau.t that reosDns are heart and sottl of the order and non communication of same itself anrcunts to denial of reasonable opportunityl of heoirLg, resulting in miscarriage of justice. This court is bound bg the said judgments hereinafter refertzd to. The necessitg of giuing reason lty a bodg or authoitA in support of its decision carncz for consideration before the Supreme Couft in seueral cases. Irtitiollg, the Supreme Court recognizetd a sott oJ demarcation between administratiue orders and quasi' judicial orders but u-tith the passage of time the distinction between the two got blured and th.iruted out and uirtuallg reached a uanislting point in the judgment of the Supreme Court tn A. K. Kralpak u. Union of India (1970) 1 SCR 45. The honourable Supreme Court uide judgments in the cases ctf Raui Yashuantt Bhoir u. District Colle'ctor '2022 SCc online Guj 2530 1 Roigad (2012) 4 SCC 407, Sant Lal Gupta u. Modern Cooperatiue Croup Housing Societg Limited (2010) 13 SCC 336, Kranti Associates Piuate Limited u. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 and Abdul Ghaffar u. Stote of Bihar (2008) 3 SCC 258, hrzs expanded the horizon of natural justice and reasons haue been treated part of the natural justice. It has gone to the extent in holding that reasons are heart and soul of the order."

13. Thus, the position of law that emerges from the decision mentioned above is that assignment of reasons is imperative in nature and the speaking order doctrine mandates assigning the reason which is the heart and soul of the decision and said reasons must be the result of indepcndent re-appreciation of evidence adduced and the documt:nts produced in the case,

14. In the instant case, the trial Court has not adverted to the reasons and contentions assigned in the affidavits filed in support of the aforesaid applications and as to whether the same are proper and suflicient for allowing the applications. Though there is a delay of 214 days in filing the application lor restoration of the suit, the trial Court did not discuss the said aspect and did not assign any reason for condoning the delay. The trial Court without giving ample opportunity to the other side, allowed the applications b'7 way of a cryptic single line order without recording reasons. l - 8

15. tn the tight of the judgrnent of the H<ln'blc Supreme Court in Kranti Associ@tes (hrst cited supra) and thc juclgment of the High Court of Gujarat in Aggaranl Dgeing and Printing Works (second cited supra), it is to be held that the reasons, which are the heart and soul of the order, are obviously missing in the impugned orders. Therefore, the impugncd orders dated 09 .Ol .2025, are unsustainable in the eye of lar.r'.

16. Accordingly, both the Civil Revision Petitions are allowed and the irnpugned orders both dated O9.0 1.2O25 are set aside. The matl.e rs are remanded back to the trial Court with a direction to adjudicate the applications i.e., [.A.Nos.769 of 2024 and 768 of 2024 afresh duly affording opport unity to the petitioners to file counter ancl also to make submissions and decide I.A.s on its own merits in accordance u'ith law, duly assigning the reasons thereof. There shall be no order as to

17. Pencling miscellaneous applications, if zrnr'. shall stand closed SD/. S TA B. REKHA RANI NT REGISTRAR \l- ECTION OFFICER //TRUE COPY// To, M

1. The Junior Civil Judge' at Achampet. 2. One CC to Sri K Anthony Reddy, Advocate [OPUC] 3. One CC to Sri G Anandam, Advocate [OPUC] 4. Two CD CoPies AI}K, I'SI- HIGH COURT DATED: 06l08l201t5 COMMON ORDER CRP.Nos.776 AND 1042 OF 2025 iEry d\'' Js 2s Itl mi I R,1 P 7_ jI \-J"'" ': '-' --. BOTH THE CRPs ARE ALLOWED WITHOUT COSTS N q h,