Telangana High Court

Rupali Sharma vs Bharathi Reddy on 7 November, 2025

Author: P.Sam Koshy

Bench: P.Sam Koshy

           THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE P.SAM KOSHY


            CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2457 of 2025


ORDER:

Heard Mr. Bankatlal Mandani, learned counsel for the

petitioners.

2. The instant Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners assailing the

order passed by the learned X Additional Chief Judge City Civil

Courts, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the 'First Appellate

Court') in C.M.A. No.116 of 2023, decided on 24.04.2025.

3. Vide the impugned order; the First Appellate Court dismissed

the aforesaid C.M.A. directed against the order and decree passed

by the learned XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad

(hereinafter referred to as the 'Trial Court') in I.A.No.357 of 2020 in

O.S.No.1513 of 2020, decided on 01.08.2023. I.A.No.357 of 2020

was a petition filed by the petitioners under XXXIX Rules 1 and 2

read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short

'CPC') seeking grant of temporary injunction against the

respondent and her privies to remove the iron grills forthwith as

shown in the plan annexed with the plaint in the petition schedule

property pending disposal of the suit.

4. The Trial Court vide its order dated 01.08.2023 dismissed the

I.A.No.357 of 2020, which was subjected to challenge before the

First Appellate Court. Incidentally, the First Appellate Court also

vide the impugned order dismissed the C.M.A. leading to filing of

the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. The main ground of challenge by the learned counsel for the

petitioners is that the plain reading of the order of the Trial Court

and comparing the same with the impugned order of the First

Appellate Court would clearly indicate that the First Appellate Court

in the course of deciding the C.M.A. had not made any application

of mind, but has simply for the sake of disposal of the C.M.A.

verbatim copied the findings of the Trial Court paragraph by

paragraph. This according to the learned counsel for the petitioners

was totally unacceptable proposition where the First Appellate

Court instead of deciding the C.M.A. on the basis of grounds raised

in the appeal, rather goes in deciding the appeal only by applying

cut, copy, and paste principle by bringing forward the entire

findings of the Trial Court in verbatim in the course of deciding the

C.M.A.

6. Having heard the contentions put forth by the learned

counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of records, this Court

found that the Trial Court in the course of deciding the C.M.A.

at paragraph Nos.10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the order has given its

findings. Now when we compare the two orders, what is reflected is

that, paragraph No.10 of the Trial Court's order is what is reflected

in paragraph No.18 of the First Appellate Court's order. It is from

paragraph No.18 onwards that the so-called findings of the First

Appellate Court have begun. Likewise, the contents of paragraph

No.19 are exactly the same as those of paragraph No.11 of the

Trial Court's order. Similarly, paragraph No.20 of the impugned

order is paragraph No.12 of the Trial Court's order. So also,

paragraph No.21 of the impugned order is paragraph No.14 of the

Trial Court's order, and paragraph No.22 of the impugned order is

paragraph No.15 of the Trial Court's order. Lastly, paragraph No.23

of the impugned order is the paragraph No.13 of the Trial Court's

order.

7. After reproducing the aforesaid paragraphs from the Trial

Court's order, the First Appellate Court had straightaway dismissed

the C.M.A.

8. The First Appellate Court in the course of exercising its

jurisdiction under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC ought to have

expressed more facts and should had dealt with the grounds raised

in the appeal, rather than getting swayed with the findings of the

Trial Court. The First Appellate Court has also committed an error

by reproducing verbatim the same findings of fact, as were the

findings of the Trial Court.

9. Undoubtedly, upon reading of the aforesaid paragraphs of the

First Appellate Court with the findings of the Trial Court, leaves no

hesitation of the fact that in fact there has been a cut, copy, and

paste procedure adopted by the First Appellate Court in the course

of deciding the appeal and there does not seem to be any personal

contribution of its own made by the First Appellate Court in the

course of deciding the appeal.

10. There is no doubt that an appeal involves fact finding, but it

does not mean that the First Appellate Court can simply decide the

appeal by bringing forward the findings given by the Trial Court in

the course of deciding an appeal. Another aspect which needs to be

considered is that no law in whatsoever factual backdrop would

permit the appeal to be decided, particularly if it is the Trial Court

and the First Appellate Court located in the District Court premises

itself by not appreciating the grounds raised on either side. Giving

reasons to reach to a conclusion is one of the basic ingredients that

are required by any judicial forum; be it at the first instance or at

the appellate stage, or even if it is the revisional forum. It is always

expected that the First Appellate forum as also the revisional forum

would deal with the grounds raised by the appellant, consider the

same and decided the appeal on its own merits on the basis of the

facts narrated in the pleadings and the evidence available on

record.

11. The Supreme Court also has depreciated such practice of

using cut, copy and paste procedure in the course of deciding the

matter. In the case of Union Public Service Commission vs.

Bibhu Prasad Sarangi and Others 1, in paragraph No.5, it was

held by the Supreme Court as under:

"5. Cutting, copying and pasting from the judgment of the Tribunal, which is placed in issue before the High Court, may add to the volume of the judgment. The size of judicial output does not necessarily correlate to a reasoned analysis of the core issues in a case. Technology enables Judges to bring speed, efficiency and accuracy to judicial work. But a prolific use of the "cut-copy-paste" function should not become a substitute for substantive reasoning which, in the ultimate analysis, is the defining feature of the judicial process. Judges are indeed hard pressed for time, faced with burgeoning vacancies and large case-loads. Crisp reasoning is perhaps the answer. Doing what the High Court has done in the present case presents a veneer of judicial reasoning, bereft of the substance which constitutes the heart of the judicial process. Reasons constitute the soul of a judicial decision. Without them one is left with a shell. The shell provides neither solace nor satisfaction to the litigant. We are constrained to make these observations since what we have encountered in this case is no longer an isolated aberration. This has become a recurring phenomenon. The National Judicial Academy will do well to take this up. How Judges communicate in their judgments is a defining characteristic of the judicial process. While it is important to keep an eye on the statistics on disposal, there is a higher value involved. The quality of justice brings legitimacy to the judiciary."

(2021) 4 Supreme Court Cases 516

12. Similar decision was also taken by the Supreme Court in the

case of Secretary and Curator, Victoria Memorial Hall vs.

Howrah Ganatantrik Nagrik Samity and Others 2, wherein in

paragraph Nos.40, 41, and 42 it has been held as under:

"40. It is a settled legal proposition that not only an administrative but also a judicial order must be supported by reasons, recorded in it. Thus, while deciding an issue, the court is bound to give reasons for its conclusion. It is the duty and obligation on the part of the court to record reasons while disposing of the case. The hallmark of an order and exercise of judicial power by a judicial forum is to disclose its reasons by itself and giving of reasons has always been insisted upon as one of the fundamentals of sound administration of justice- delivery system, to make known that there had been proper and due application of mind to the issue before the court and also as an essential requisite of the principles of natural justice. "The giving of reasons for a decision is an essential attribute of judicial and judicious disposal of a matter before courts, and which is the only indication to know about the manner and quality of exercise undertaken, as also the fact that the court concerned had really applied its mind." (Vide State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar [(2004) 5 SCC 568 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 49 : AIR 2004 SC 1794] and State of Rajasthan v. Sohan Lal [(2004) 5 SCC 573 : (2008) 2 SCC (Cri) 53])

41. Reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. It introduces clarity in an order and without the same, it becomes lifeless.

(2010) 3 Supreme Court Cases 732

Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. Absence of reasons renders the order indefensible/unsustainable particularly when the order is subject to further challenge before a higher forum. (Vide Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar [(2003) 11 SCC 519 : 2004 SCC (Cri) 212 : AIR 2003 SC 4664] , SCC p. 527, para 19; Vishnu Dev Sharma v. State of U.P. [(2008) 3 SCC 172 : (2008) 1 SCC (L&S) 596] , SAIL v.

STO [(2008) 9 SCC 407] , State of Uttaranchal v. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi [(2008) 11 SCC 205 : (2008) 2 SCC (L&S) 1093 :

AIR 2008 SC 2026] , U.P. SRTC v. Jagdish Prasad Gupta [(2009) 12 SCC 609 : (2010) 1 SCC (L&S) 156 : AIR 2009 SC 2328] , Ram Phal v. State of Haryana [(2009) 3 SCC 258 :

(2009) 1 SCC (L&S) 645 : (2009) 2 SCC (Cri) 72] , Mohd.

Yusuf v. Faij Mohammad [(2009) 3 SCC 513] and State of H.P. v. Sada Ram [(2009) 4 SCC 422].)

42. Thus, it is evident that the recording of reasons is a principle of natural justice and every judicial order must be supported by reasons recorded in writing. It ensures transparency and fairness in decision making. The person who is adversely affected may know, as to why his application has been rejected."

13. In the instant case also, the findings given by the First

Appellate Court in the course of dismissing the C.M.A. and the

grounds narrated by the Trial Court while dismissing the I.A.No.357

of 2020 are same. Only on this ground, the impugned order passed

by the First Appellate Court is not sustainable and the impugned

order therefore deserves to be and is accordingly set aside.

However, since the impugned order is being set aside only on the

ground of the order not being sustainable because of the non-

application of mind, this Court is of the considered opinion that it is

a fit case to remand the matter back to the First Appellate Court to

decide the C.M.A. again afresh in a more pragmatic manner by

giving reasons in the course of deciding the C.M.A.