Telangana High Court

M. Sanjay Kumar vs Shanta Educational Society on 2 February, 2024

Author: P. Sam Koshy

Bench: P. Sam Koshy

     THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P. SAM KOSHY

        CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3838 of 2023


ORDER :

The present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioner challenging

the peculiar order dated 17.10.2023 in I.A.No.1676 of 2023 in

O.P.No.10 of 2023 passed by the Court of the XXVII Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, (for short, 'the

impugned order').

2. Heard Sri A. Venkatesh, learned Senior Counsel appearing

on behalf of Sri Pasham Mohith, learned counsel for the petitioner

and Sri Tarun G. Reddy, learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The brief facts to understand the reason which compelled

this Court to entertain the present Civil Revision Petition and also

to delve into the peculiar situation that has arisen in the facts of

the present case are that, the petitioner herein is the plaintiff

before the Court below who had filed the O.P.No.10 of 2023 under

Section 23 of the Telangana Society Registration Act, 2001. The

reliefs sought for in the O.P. are as under:

i. To declare the actions of the Respondent No. 2 to 13 in pressing into service the undated draft resignation letter of the Petitioner by forging the date and removing Petitioner as founding member of the Respondent No. 1 as illegal, arbitrary and unjust in ::2::

law and set aside the same as null and void and not binding upon the Petitioner;

ii. to grant a relief or mandatory injunction thereby directing the Respondent No. 2 to 13 to furnish the copies of the undated letter, undated MOU, board resolution on the basis of which Respondents have pressed into service the undated resignation letter of Petitioner and removed Petitioner as founding member of the Respondent No.1.

iii. to grant a relief or mandatory injunction thereby directing the Respondent No.1 to 13 to furnish all the financial accounts, books and statements of the Petitioner Society from 2006-07 to the present financial year before this Hon'ble Court iv. to appoint an Advocate Commissioner to verify the vouchers, receipts, donations, balance sheets and accounts of the Respondent No.1 Society. v. To consequently grant a Relief of Perpetual Injunction thereby restraining the Respondents 2 to 13, their representatives, employees and all persons acting on behalf of Respondent no.2 to 13 from illegally stopping the Petitioner from entering into the registered office premises and "St. Peters Engineering College" located at Kompally, Medchal of Respondent no.1 Society.

vi. To grant a relief of Permanent injunction thereby restraining the Respondents 2 to 13 from in any way accepting, honouring, permitting and allowing any kind of interference in the matters of pertaining to the admission, appointments and administration of educational institution named as "St. Peters Engineering College" located at Kompally, Medchal of Respondent no.1 Society.

vii. By awarding the costs of the proceedings and other incidental expenses / charges etc., incurred to by the Petitioner ; and viii. To grant any such relief(s) as deemed fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and to which the Petitioner is legally entitled to, in the interest of justice.

4. The Suit was registered and notices were issued to the

respondents. The respondents herein entered appearance before

the Court below and filed a petition under Order VII Rule 11 read

with Section 151 of the CPC vide I.A.No.1676 of 2023 seeking for ::3::

rejection of plaint on 09.08.2023. The matter was heard at length

on 03.10.2023 and the matter was reserved for passing orders in

the said I.A. The Court below posted the matter on 17.10.2023, on

which date, the Court below had allowed the said I.A. and further

ordered for rejection of the O.P. itself i.e. O.P.No.10 of 2023.

5. Immediately, thereafter the petitioner herein moved an

application for obtaining the certified copy of the order so as to

enable him to challenge the said order. To utter surprise, the

petitioner learnt that though the I.A. has been ordered to be

allowed and the O.P. as a consequence has been ordered to be

rejected, but there was no such order existing on the files of the

O.P.No.10 of 2023 or in the Court of the Hon'ble XXVII Additional

Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad. The petitioner

continued to pursue with the copying section of the Court below

seeking for certified copy of the order but the petitioner could not

get the same. Meanwhile, on 09.10.2023, the Presiding Officer who

had heard I.A.No.1676 of 2023 got transferred to Ranga Reddy

District. The Officer stood relieved and also joined at the new

transferred place. Simultaneously, another Officer took charge.

Since the petitioner did not get certified copy, he approached the

newly joined Presiding Officer along with an application under

Rule 188 of Civil Rules of Practice.

::4::

6. The presiding Officer thereafter passed an order on

12.12.2023 directing the administrative Officer and the concerned

clerk for providing the certified copy within three (3) days failing

which the matter would be reported before the Chief Judge.

In spite of the said direction, when the petitioner could not get a

favourable decision, the present Civil Revision Petition has been

filed on 21.12.2023 seeking for quashment of the oral order dated

17.10.2023 as the physical copy of the order was not in existence

as the petitioner was not provided with the copy of the order

though more than two (02) months had passed since the order was

passed and application for certified copy was applied.

7. It was in this context, when the matter was taken up for

admission on 29.12.2023, this Court while hearing the case on

admission had made the following observations:

"Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that it appears that the reasoned order in I.A.No.1676 of 2023 is not available on record though there appears to be a docket order of allowing the I.A.No.1676 of 2023 filed under Order VII Rule 11(a) & (d) read with Section 151 of CPC.

Learned Senior Counsel further informs that the presiding Officer who has passed the reasoned order in I.A.No.1676 of 2023 is since been transferred and a new incumbent Officer has taken charge and in spite of best efforts of the new incumbent Officer, the earlier reasoned order dated 17.10.2023 in I.A.No.1676 of 2023 could not be traced.

Let the matter be placed before the Registrar (Vigilance) on the administrative side to look into the aspects and to submit a report by 05.01.2024 and the matter be listed on 05.01.2024.

::5::

It has also been informed that there has been similar instances against the very same Officer against the very same Officer and there was yet another Civil Revision Petition which stood allowed by this Court on 10.11.2023 in C.R.P.No.3266 of 2023 which too the Registrar (Vigilance) shall keep in mind."

8. Today when the matter is taken up for hearing, the report

from the Registrar (Vigilance) has been received and in the report

of the Registrar (Vigilance) the following observations are made:

"In due compliance with the above said direction, a detailed report has been called for and received from the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad as to the reasons for non-availability of fair copy of order, dated 17-10-2023 passed in IA.No.1676/2023 in OP.No.10/2023 on file of XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Secunderabad.

In turn, the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad after having received remarks of the concerned officer, stated that according to the XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil court, Secunderabad for preparation of fair copy of the above said order, the delay has been occurred at the instance of his predecessor; that at present the original fair order in IA.No.1676/2023, dated 17-10-2023 is available with the record. Further, after receipt of original fair order in IA.No.1676/2023, dated 17-10-2023 from the then Presiding Officer on 22-12- 2023 duly signed by the officer, the copy application No.8020/2023 was complied to the copying section, City Civil Court, Secunderabad."

9. From the aforesaid factual matrix, what is glaringly visible is

that in the pending O.P.No.10 of 2023, the respondents have filed

I.A.No.1676 of 2023 which was heard on 03.10.2023. The matter

was taken up for orders on 17.10.2023. In the docket order it has

been shown that I.A.No.1676 of 2023 stands allowed and as a

consequence, the O.P. stands rejected. But the copy of the order

was not available either on record or with the staff, nor was it ::6::

found available in the file of O.P.No.10 of 2023. In spite of best

efforts made by the petitioner, the copy could not be obtained.

Even an application under Rule 188 of Civil Rules of Practice for

providing of the certified copy went in vain. Now after this Court

took cognizance of the matter and vigilance report was called for,

the, Registrar (Vigilance) in turn having called report from the

learned Chief Judge, City Civil Court at Secunderabad, it appears

that the Presiding Officer who had then heard the I.A. has now

made available an order duly signed by him. Whereas, factually

the order was till the Civil Revision Petition was filed in the High

Court was not available anywhere, nor with anybody.

10. The petitioner was deprived of challenging the said order

dated 17.10.2023 in the absence of the certified copy. In the

absence of the certified copy, the petitioner was not even aware of

the grounds and reasons on which the I.A.No.1676 of 2023 stood

allowed.

11. It is in this context that this Court is inclined to proceed and

consider the peculiar issue which has developed or arisen in the

present case to be dealt with and decided without even entering

into the merits of the case as is being contended by either side so

far as the factual aspects are concerned.

::7::

12. As regards the matter being heard on 03.10.2023, the

Presiding Officer pronouncing the orders on 17.10.2023 allowing

the said I.A. and rejecting the O.P. and above all the non-

availability of an order dated 17.10.2023 on record are all not in

dispute by any of the parties. Another admitted factual position as

is apparently clear is though the pronouncement was made on

17.10.2023, the Presiding Officer remained in station till he/she

was transferred after about three (3) weeks time on 19.11.2023. In

between there was ample opportunity available for the concerned

Presiding Officer to have released the order enabling the parties to

get the certified copy. It is also an admitted position that even the

draft copy of the order was not available either in the file/records

nor was it kept in a sealed cover for correction purpose. Neither

did any of the staffs including the Private Secretary/Stenographer

of the concerned Court had the draft copy of the order dated

17.10.2023 or were aware of any such order having being decided

or dictated by the Presiding Officer.

13. In the aforesaid factual position what now is to be

considered is what best order can be passed to maintain the

gravity of the Court as also the purity of the justice delivery

system. In this context, it would relevant to take note of some of

the decisions rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in this

regard.

::8::

14. In the case of Balaji Baliram Mupade Vs. State of

Maharashtra 1, the Honble Supreme Court highlighted the issue of

delayed delivery of reasoned judgments and emphasized the

importance of providing detailed reasons along with final orders.

The Constitution Bench in State of Punjab Vs. Jagdev Singh

Talwandi 2 had previously cautioned against the practice of

pronouncing final orders without a reasoned judgment, recognizing

the challenges it poses for parties seeking redress in higher courts.

The Court expressed concerns that such a practice hampers the

proper implementation of orders and often leads to stay orders by

the higher court until the reasoned judgment is available. The

relevant portion of the Balaji Baliram Mupade (1 supra) are

extracted herein under:

"2. A Constitution Bench of this Court as far back as in the year 1983 in State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi drew the attention of the High Courts to the serious difficulties which were caused on account of a practice which was increasingly being adopted by several High Courts, that of pronouncing the final orders without a reasoned judgment. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under: (SCC p. 611, para

30) "30. We would like to take this opportunity to point out that serious difficulties arise on account of the practice increasingly adopted by the High Courts, of pronouncing the final order without a reasoned judgment. It is desirable that the final order which the High Court intends to pass should not be announced until a reasoned judgment is ready for pronouncement.

1 (2021) 12 Supreme Court Cases 603

(1984) 1 596 SCC ::9::

Suppose, for example, that a final order without a reasoned judgment is announced by the High Court that a house shall be demolished, or that the custody of a child shall be handed over to one parent as against the other, or that a person accused of a serious charge is acquitted, or that a statute is unconstitutional or, as in the instant case, that a detenu be released from detention. If the object of passing such orders is to ensure speedy compliance with them, that object is more often defeated by the aggrieved party filing a special leave petition in this Court against the order passed by the High Court. That places this Court in a predicament because, without the benefit of the reasoning of the High Court, it is difficult for this Court to allow the bare order to be implemented. The result inevitably is that the operation of the order passed by the High Court has to be stayed pending delivery of the reasoned judgment."

10.We must note with regret that the counsel extended through various judicial pronouncements including the one referred to aforesaid appear to have been ignored, more importantly where oral orders are pronounced. In case of d such orders, it is expected that they are either dictated in the court or at least must follow immediately thereafter, to facilitate any aggrieved party to seek redressal from the higher court. The delay in delivery of judgments has been observed to be a violation of Article 21 of the Constitution of India in Anil Rai case and as stated aforesaid, the problem gets aggravated when the operative portion is made available early and the reasons follow much later.

12. The appellant undoubtedly being the aggrieved party and prejudice by the impugned order is unable to avail of the legal remedy of approaching this Court where reasons can be scrutinized. It really amounts to defeating the rights of the appellant to challenge the impugned order on merits and even the succeeding party is unable to obtain the fruits of success of the litigation.

14. We have little option in the aforesaid facts of the case but to set aside the impugned order and remit the matter back for reconsideration of the High Court on merits, uninfluenced by the reasons® which have been finally disclosed in respect of the impugned order.

::10::

17. Since the matter has to be re-heard, the interim order which was operating in favour of the appellant in terms of the order dated 15-5-2013 of the High Court would continue to ensure for the benefit of the appellant.

15. In the case of K. MadanMohan Rao Vs. Bheemrao

Baswanthrao Patil and Others 3, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held

as under:

3. In this appeal, essentially the grievance projected before us is that an application under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('CPC') moved in the Election Petition filed by the present appellant in the High Court for Telangana at Hyderabad, was taken up for consideration after a considerable delay and, after a prolonged hearing, ultimately, the order was pronounced on 15.06.2022, purportedly allowing the application and rejecting the election petition filed by the present appellant but then, the reasoned order allowing the application is not available as yet.

8. It has been pointed out that, after the said order dated 26.03.2021 and a request having been made to Hon'ble the Chief Justice of the High Court, the matter was placed before another Hon'ble Judge and was proceeded further but then, hearing on the application moved under Order VII Rule 11 CPC itself took a long time with several dates of hearing; the order was reserved on 22.12.2021; the parties filed written submissions in the first week of January, 2022; and then, the matter was listed again on 01.04.2022 and was re-reserved. It is pointed out that ultimately, the order was orally pronounced by the Hon'ble Judge on 15.06.2022 but, that had only been the pronouncement of the result and no reasoned order was supplied to the parties. It has also been submitted that even after more than three months, the reasoned order is still not available to the parties.

9. Dr.Singhvi, learned senior counsel has particularly referred to paragraph 10(v) of decision of this Court in the case of "Anil Raiv. State of Bihar" reported in (2001) 7 SCC 318; and paragraphs 30 and 31 of the Constitution Bench decision of this Court in the case of "State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi" reported in

2022 SCC OnLine SC 1305 ::11::

(1984) 1 SCC 596 while submitting that in the given set of facts and circumstances, the impugned order deserves to be interfered with for want of reasons.

11. As regards the Constitution Bench decision in Jagdev Singh Talwandi (supra),learned senior counsel for the respondents has submitted that the observations therein, essentially relating to the matters concerning violation of fundamental rights or other rights affecting human dignity cannot, as such, be applied to every case orevery cause. The emphasis of the learned counsel has been that in any case, no interference at this juncture is called for when the High Court has devoted time in hearing the application and has indeed pronounced the order, even if reasons are awaited.

16. In Jagdev Singh Talwandi's case (supra), the Constitution Bench of this Court has observed, while stating its expectation for appropriate compliance in the following "30. We would like to take this opportunity to point out that serious difficulties arise on account of the practice increasingly adopted by the High Courts, of pronouncing the final order without a reasoned judgment. It is desirable that the final order which the High Court intends to pass should not be announced until a reasoned judgment is ready for pronouncement. Suppose, for example, that a final order without a reasoned judgment is announced by the High Court that a house shall be demolished, or that the custody of a child shall be handed over to one parent as against the other, or that a person accused of a serious charge is acquitted, or that a statute is unconstitutional or, as in the instant case, that adetenu be released from detention. If the object of passing such orders is to ensure speedy compliance with them, that object is more often defeated by the aggrieved party filing a special leave petition in this Court against the order passed by the High Court. That places this Court in a predicament because, without the benefit of the reasoning of the High Court, it is difficult for this Court to allow the bare order to be implemented. The result inevitably is that the operation of the order passed by the High Court has to be stayed pending delivery of the reasoned judgment."

20. Even if we take into consideration the submissions made on behalf of the respondents about availability of ::12::

the remedy of appeal to this Court, in our view, such an appeal, which could be preferred on the question/s of law or fact, would also remain an empty formality for the simple reason that neither determination of question of law nor determination of any question of fact by the High Court for the purpose of dealing with the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC is available to the parties. Incontinuity to this, we are constrained to observe that a party to the litigation cannot be expected to wait indefinitely for availability of the reasons for the order of the Court. Moreover, when the matter relates to the election petition under the Act of1951, which itself is a time-sensitive matter, we find no reason that the appellant be relegated to the statutory remedy of appeal under Section 116A of the Act of 1951 in this case.

22. For what has been observed and discussed hereinabove, we are clearly of the view that the order dated 15.06.2022, as said to have been passed by the High Court in disposal of the application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC, deserves to be disapproved only for the reason that even until this date, the reasons for the said order are not available with either of the parties nor are available on the website of the High Court nor the copy of the order has been supplied despite the parties having made the applications seeking certified copy of the order.

16. In the case of Indrajeet Yadav Vs. Santosh Singh and

Another 4, the Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the importance of

promptness in delivering judgments and the need to provide

reasons simultaneously with the final order, which again for ready

reference is reproduced herein under:

6. In the case of Balaji Baliram Mupade(supra) in paragraphs 1 to 4 it is observed and held as under:

"1. Judicial discipline requires promptness in delivery of judgments - an aspect repeatedly emphasized by this Court. The problem is compounded where the result is known but not the reasons. This deprives any aggrieved party of the opportunity to seek further

2022 SCC OnLine SC 461 ::13::

judicial redressal in the next tier of judicial scrutiny.

2. A Constitution Bench of this Court as far back as in the year 1983 in the State of Punjab v. Jagdev Singh Talwandi- (1984) 1 SCC 596 drew the attention of the High Courts to the serious difficulties which were caused on account of a practice which was increasingly being adopted by several High Courts, that of pronouncing the final orders 2 without a reasoned judgment. The relevant paragraph is reproduced as under:

"30. We would like to take this opportunity to point out that serious difficulties arise on account of the practice increasingly adopted by the High Courts, of pronouncing the final order without a reasoned judgment. It is desirable that the final order which the High Court intends to pass should not be announced until a reasoned judgment is ready for pronouncement. Suppose, for example, that a final order without a reasoned judgment is announced by the High Court that a house shall be demolished, or that the custody of a child shall be handed over to one parent as against the other, or that a person accused of a serious charge is acquitted, or that a statute is unconstitutional or, as in the instant case, that a detenu be released from detention. If the object of passing such orders is to ensure speedy compliance with them, that object is more often defeated by the aggrieved party filing a special Leave Petition in this Court against the order passed by the High Court. That places this Court in a predicament because, without the benefit of the reasoning of the High Court, it is difficult for this Court to allow the bare order to be implemented. The result inevitably is that the operation of the order passed by the High Court has to be stayed pending delivery of the reasoned judgment."

7. Despite the strong observations made by this Court as far as back in the year 1984 and thereafter repeatedly reiterated, still the practice of pronouncing only the operative portion of the judgment without a reasoned judgment and to pass a reasoned judgment subsequently has been continued. Such a practice of pronouncing the final orders without a reasoned judgment has to be stopped and discouraged.

9. From the record of proceedings it appears that the reasoned judgment was pronounced and uploaded after ::14::

a period of almost five months. Therefore, applying the law laid down by this Court in the decisions referred to hereinabove, we set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court without further entering into the merits of the case nor expressing anything on merits in favour of either party. We remand the appeals to the High Court to decide the same afresh in accordance with law and on its own merits. We request the High Court to finally decide and dispose of the appeals at the earliest and preferably within a period of six months from the date of the receipt of the present order. However, it is observed that during the pendency of the appeals before the High Court the accused need not surrender and they may be treated to have been released on bail and continued to be released on bail, however subject to the ultimate outcome of the appeals before the High Court. If the conviction is sustained the accused shall surrender within a period of two weeks from the date of the pronouncement of the judgment."

17. From the judgment pronounced by the Hon'ble Apex Court in

the case of Jagdev Singh Talwandi (supra), what is culled out is

that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had specifically observed and had

desired that final orders which the Court intends to pass should

not be pronounced until a reasoned judgment is ready. In fact, the

Hon'ble Supreme Court depreciated the practice of judicial

pronouncement without reasons being disclosed and where only

oral orders are pronounced without there being anything in writing

available. The concern raised by the Hon'ble Supreme Court was

the fact that the aggrieved person is deprived of seeking redressal

from the higher courts.

18. It has been brought to our notice that the learned Principal

District Judge, i.e., the Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Hyderabad

under whose jurisdiction the Court of the XXVII Additional Chief ::15::

Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad comes had issued a

memo in this regard after a similar incident was brought to the

notice of the learned Principal District Judge. In the said memo, it

was specifically directed that all Judicial Officers should ensure

that while pronouncing reasoned orders, the orders must be ready

and it must also be ready for being sent for certified copy enabling

the parties to take appropriate legal recourse thereto. In this case,

in spite of the specific memo having been issued of which the

learned Presiding Officer, in the instant case, who had considered

I.A.No.1676 of 2023 and pronounced an oral order on 17.10.2023,

he / she did not think it proper to ensure that the oral order is

made after the reasoned order was ready, or at least was ready for

being sent to the Section for uploading the same and also for

certified copy.

19. In the instant case, from the facts narrated in the preceding

paragraph it is quite obvious that it was only after this Court had

taken cognizance of the instant Civil Revision Petition and when

information had gone to the concerned judicial officer that it

appears that the concerned Presiding Officer thereafter, so as to

give a proper explanation to the Registrar (Vigilance) who was

directed to seek instructions, has got the order finalized and has

sent to the concerned Court for the same to be sent to the Copying

Section. It has also been informed at the Bar that in spite of the ::16::

order having been sent by the concerned Presiding Officer on

22.12.2023, the parties does not seem to have got the certified

copy till date.

20. In the given factual backdrop, particularly taking into

consideration the serious observations made by the Hon'ble

Supreme Court repeatedly : first in the case of Jagdev Singh

Talwandi (supra) and thereafter in the case of Balaji Baliram

Mupade ( supra), and recently again the case of Indrajeet Yadav

(supra), this Court is inclined to hold that the impugned order

dated 17.10.2023 received from the original Presiding Officer only

on 22.12.2023, that is much after the said Presiding Officer having

transferred and he / she joined the transfer place, is hard to

accept and it is also hard to hold the said order sustainable.

21. It is also difficult for this Court to accept the said order in

the given factual backdrop for yet another reason that, that the

order which has been received from the concerned Presiding

Officer on 22.12.2033 is not free from many doubts and inferences

which crops up in the mind particularly that of the impugned

order being one which seems to have been passed anti-dated with

a clear intention of somehow try to avoid future complications so

far as the Presiding Officer is concerned.

22. In view of above, following the dictum of the Hon'ble

Supreme Court in the judgments referred to in the preceding ::17::

paragraphs, the impugned order dated 17.10.2023 is ordered to be

set aside / quashed. The matter stands remitted back to the

XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at Secunderabad

for a fresh consideration of I.A.No.1676 of 2023 in O.P.No.10 of

2023.

23. Considering the long lapse of time that has transpired in the

intervening period after the order dated 17.10.2023 was passed in

I.A.No.1676 of 2023 in O.P.No.10 of 2023, it is directed that the

concerned XXVII Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, at

Secunderabad dealing with O.P.No.10 of 2023 shall re-hear the

I.A.No.1676 of 2023 in O.P.No.10 of 2023 and conclude the same

within an outer limit of fifteen (15) days from 15.02.2024. Both

the parties are directed to ensure their presence before the

concerned Court on the 15th of February, 2024 for re-hearing the

matter in I.A.No.1676 of 2023 in O.P.No.10 of 2023.

24. Before parting, it is necessary to issue a direction that has

been observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid

judgments, that the Judicial Officers in the State after hearing the

I.A. or the main petition itself when he / she fixes the case for

pronouncement of order, it is expected that while pronouncing the

order the reasoned order would be ready and it shall be promptly

sent to the concerned Section for further course of action that of

uploading the same and also the file being sent to the Copying ::18::

Section enabling the parties to obtain the same to avail the next

legal recourse available to either of the parties.

25. With these observations, the Civil Revision Petition stands

allowed. No costs.

26. As a sequel, miscellaneous applications pending if any, shall

stand closed.

__________________ P. SAM KOSHY, J

Date: 02.02.2024

Note:

The Registry is directed to send copy of this order to all the learned Principal District Judges, who in turn shall issue specific instructions to all the Judicial Officers posted under them in their respective Districts, directing them that the order and the direction issued therein shall be strictly complied.