Telangana High Court

Smt. Pottabathini Veena vs Satish Chandra Avadhutha on 13 June, 2025

     HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

          CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.209 OF 2025
ORDER:

Heard Ms. O.Ramaa Swetha, learned counsel for petitioner

and Sri Rapolu Bhaskar, learned counsel for respondent.

2. This Revision is filed assailing the docket order dated

07.01.2025 in I.A.No.1255 of 2024 in FCOP No.557 of 2021 passed

by the Additional Family Judge, Ranga Reddy District at

L.B.Nagar, whereby and where under application filed under

Section 151 of CPC was allowed.

3. Brief facts of the case are that respondent herein has filed

F.C.O.P.No.557 of 2021 against the petitioner herein seeking

divorce by dissolving the marriage of the petitioner and

respondent and evidence on both sides completed and the matter

is coming up for arguments. At that stage, respondent herein filed

application to reopen the evidence of petitioner for the purpose of

receiving certain documents. Petitioner herein filed counter

resisting the application, however, the trail Court vide impugned

order dated 07.01.2025 allowed the application.

LNA, J

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 LNA, J

herself executed the above said documents and in fact, the trial

Court has recorded that several contentions have been raised by

the petitioner and on due consideration overall facts and

circumstances, the trial Court has rightly allowed the application

and finally, prayed to dismiss the Revision.

7. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the submissions

made by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the

entire material available on record.

8. Perusal of the impugned order dated 07.01.2025 would show

that the trial Court has not discussed the grounds and reasons

basing on which application was filed to reopen the evidence of

respondent herein for recalling the evidence of P.W.1 for the

purpose of receiving the certain documents. The trial Court has

also not discussed the objections raised by the petitioner herein

opposing the application, except saying that it is just and necessary

to allow the petition to reopen the evidence of P.W.1 for marking

of documents. The impugned order reads as under:

"Since I.A.No.1253 of 2024 is allowed recalling P.W.1, hence this Court is inclined to allow the present petition as LNA, J

prayed for. Therefore, it is just and necessary to allow this petition to reopen the evidence of PW.1 for marking of documents."

9. The impugned order passed by the trial Court is cryptic 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 sufficient reasons have

been shown for filing the application belatedly that too when the

matter was coming up for arguments.

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 v. Masood Ahmed Khan 1, the Hon'ble

Supreme Court, after considering various judgments, formulated

certain principles which are set out below:-

"(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(2010) 9 SCC 496 LNA, J

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

(f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies.

(g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts.

(h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice.

(i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them.

All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system.

(j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency.

(k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism.

LNA, J

(l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process.

(m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-737) ;

(n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553 at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001] EWCA Civ 405, wherein the court referred to article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, 'adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decision.'

(o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of 'due process'."

Following the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme

Court in Kranti Associates (one cited supra), the High Court of

Gujarat in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. State of

Gujarat and others 2 observed as under:-

"At the outset, we notice that it is settled 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 miscarriage of justice. This court is bound by the said judgments hereinafter referred to.

2022 SCC Online Guj 2530 LNA, J

The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came for consideration before the Supreme Court in several cases. Initially, the Supreme Court recognized a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasi- judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. K. Kralpak v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCR 45. The honourable Supreme Court vide judgments in the cases of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector Raigad (2012) 4 SCC 407, Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (2010) 13 SCC 336; Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 and Abdul Ghaffar v. State of Bihar (2008) 3 SCC 258, has expanded the horizon of natural justice and reasons have been treated part of the natural justice. It has gone to the extent in holding that reasons are heart and soul of the order."

12. 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.

13. In the instant case, the trial Court has evidently not adverted

to the contentions set out in the affidavit, filed in support of the

aforesaid application, as well as the contentions raised by the

petitioner therein in the counter and allowed the application by

way of a cryptic three line order.

14. In the light of the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in

Kranti Associates (supra) and the judgment of the High Court of LNA, J

Gujarat in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works (supra), it has to