Pasupuleti Mohan Rao vs Kasani Srinivasa Reddy
2023 Latest Caselaw 2668 Tel

            HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K. LAKSHMAN

         CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2290 OF 2023
ORAL ORDER:

      Heard Mr. D. Tharun Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Mr. P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the

respondents.

2. This revision is filed under Article - 227 of the Constitution

of India challenging the order dated 10.11.2022 in I.A. No.15 of 2022

in O.S. No.23 of 2022 passed by learned Agent to Government,

Bhadradri - Kothagudem.

3. The petitioner herein - plaintiff filed a suit vide O.S. No.23

of 2022 against the respondents herein - defendants seeking perpetual

injunction. He has also filed an interlocutory application vide I.A.

No.15 of 2022 seeking ad interim injunction. The learned Agent

ordered notice. The respondents entered appearance and filed their

counter. Upon hearing them, the learned Agent dismissed the said

I.A. vide order dated 10.11.2022.

4. Perusal of the impugned order would reveal that though the

learned Agent referred the pleadings of the parties and the documents

filed by them, no reasons were assigned. There is no consideration of

KL, J CRP No.2290 of 2023

the pleadings and documents filed by the parties. The impugned order

is an order passed without assigning reasons and it is a nullity.

5. It is also relevant to note that in Chernam Chinna

Balmasiah v. State Teachers Union, Telangana 1, this Court held as

under:

"This Court, having given conscious thought, had observed that there is some ambiguity arising on account of the observations of the Division Bench in T.

Bhopal Reddy v. K.R. Lakshmi Bai [1998 (1) ALD 770 (DB), wherein it is not categorically held that it is mandatory for the documents to be marked. On further examination, it was found that there is yet another judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in C.M.A.Nos. 527, 564 and 607 of 2017, dated 21.07.2017, which, while holding that the Rule regarding marking of documents in terms of the Civil Rules of Practice be adhered to, directed the Registry to issue a Circular to the subordinate courts to mark the documents filed by the parties to the Interlocutory Applications before deciding such Applications. In this context, Rules 51, 60 and 115 of the Civil Rules of Practice may be noted. While Rule 115 deals with marking of documents admitted in evidence, which can be done only at the time of trial, Rule 51 read with Rule 60 caters to the need of the marking of documents for the purpose of disposal of the Interlocutory Applications. Rules 51 and 60, which are more

. CRP No.1234 of 2020, decided on 28.07.2021

KL, J CRP No.2290 of 2023

relevant for the purpose of dealing with the issue in the present Revision, are extracted as under:

" 51. Documents referred to in affidavit:-

Document referred to by affidavit shall be referred to as exhibits and shall be marked in the same manner as exhibits admitted by the court and shall bear the certificate in Form No.16 which shall be signed by the officer before whom the affidavit is taken.

60. Proof of facts by affidavit:-

Any fact required to be proved upon an interlocutory proceeding shall unless otherwise provided by these rules, or ordered by the court, be provided by affidavit but the Judge may, in any case, direct evidence to be given orally, and thereupon the evidence shall be recorded, and exhibits marked, in the same manner as in a suit and lists of the witnesses and exhibits shall be prepared and annexed to the judgment."

6. In the light of the above discussion and the principle laid

down by this Court, there is no consideration of the said principle and

the learned Sub-Divisional Magistrate violated the procedure while

passing the impugned order.

7. In the light of the aforesaid discussion, without going into

the merits and demerits of the case, the impugned order dated

10.11.2022 in I.A. No.15 of 2022 in O.S. No.23 of 2022 passed by

learned Agent to Government, Bhadradri - Kothagudem is set aside.

KL, J CRP No.2290 of 2023

The matter is remanded back to the learned Agent to Government with

a direction to consider the aforesaid I.A. No.15 of 2022 and pass

appropriate orders strictly in accordance with law by putting the

parties on notice and affording them an opportunity. The learned

Agent shall decide the said I.A. as expeditiously as possible,

preferably within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt

of copy of this order.

8. This Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed. In the

circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.

As a sequel, the miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in the

revision shall stand closed.

_________________ K. LAKSHMAN, J 23rd September, 2023 Mgr