Allowed

Kanchi Lakshmi, v. Kanchi Veerabhadra Rao

Andhra Pradesh HC23 Mar 2021CRP/90/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed a civil revision petition challenging an impugned order where the lower court allowed amendment of issues without assigning reasons. The Court held that recording reasons is essential for judicial review and natural justice, and set aside the order for remanding the matter.

What did the court decide?

Civil Revision Petition allowed, impugned order dated 08.09.2016 set aside, matter remanded for fresh consideration.

Kanchi Lakshmi, Vs Kanchi Veerabhadra Rao — Property and Title | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HON”BLE SMT.JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶2

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.90 of 2017

¶3

ORDER :

¶4

This civil revision petition is filed assailing the docket order dated 08.09.2016 in I.A.No.84 of 2015 in O.S.No.75 of 2008 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District wherein the petition filed by defendant No.2 under XIV Rule 5 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 seeking amendment of issues was allowed.

¶5

The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed O.S.No.75 of 2008 against the defendants for declaration of title and recovery of possession of the suit schedule property. After framing of the issues, respondent No.2/defendant No.2 filed an application seeking amendment of the issues 1 to 3 and to strike off issue No.4 alleging that Veeramma executed a registered gift deed dated 05.11.2003 in favour of her daughter-in-law. The Court below allowed the said application without assigning any reasons. Hence, the plaintiff is before this Court by way of this revision.

¶6

Heard Sri Y.Sudhakar, learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff. Though notices were served on the

¶7

respondents, there was no representation on behalf of the respondents.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioner/plaintiff submits that the learned Judge ought to have passed an order by assigning reasons either for dismissing or allowing the same. The petitioner has drawn attention of this Court to the impugned order and submits that except extracting the contents of the affidavit filed in support of the petition in I.A.No.84 of 2015 and the counter filed therein

¶9

¶10

and the words i.e. ‘taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the petition is allowed’ no reasons are given in the said order for allowing the same. The order impugned was passed without appreciating the objections raised by the petitioner/plaintiff in the counter. Hence, the same is liable to be set aside.

¶11

Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material available on record. The defendant has filed an application under Order XIV Rule 5 of CPC. Before dwelling into the merits of the case, it is appropriate to extract Order 5 Rule XIV of C.P.C. which reads thus:

¶12

Rule 5 Order XIV of Code of Civil Procedure 1908 "Power to amend and strike out, issues"

¶13

(1) The Court may at any time before passing a decree amend the issues or frame additional issues on such terms as it thinks fit, and all such amendments or additional issues as may be necessary for determining the matters in controversy between the parties shall be so made or framed.

¶14

(2) The Court may also, at any time before passing a decree, strike out any issues that appear to it to be wrongly framed or introduced.

¶15

When an order is passed by the learned Judge and there is a remedy of preferring revision to any of the aggrieved parties the Court below ought to have recorded the reasons. Recording of reasons assures that the discretion has been exercised judiciously and also facilitates the process of judicial review by the appellate Courts. The Hon’ble Apex Court has observed that giving reasons in support of the order is the third principle of natural justice. The Courts have to pass reasoned orders. Every case must contain the narration of the bare facts of the case of the parties to the lis, the

¶16

¶17

issues arising in the case, the submissions urged by the parties, the legal principles applicable to the issues involved and the reasons in support of the findings on all the issues arising in the case. In the present case, the learned Judge failed to give any reasons for allowing the petition.

¶18

In view of the above, as no reasons are recorded in the order impugned, this order deserves to be set aside.

¶19

Accordingly this Civil Revision Petition is allowed setting aside the order dated 08.09.2016 in I.A.No.84 of 2015 in O.S.No.75 of 2008 passed by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Peddapuram, East Godavari District and the matter is remanded to the Court below for fresh consideration. There shall be no order as to costs.

¶20

As a sequel thereto, miscellaneous petitions pending, if any, shall also stand closed.

¶21

___________________________ LALITHA KANNEGANTI, J

¶22

Dated : 23.03.2021 KA

¶23

¶24

¶25

THE HON”BLE SMT.JUSTICE LALITHA KANNEGANTI

¶26

(Allowed)

¶27

CIVIL REVISION PETITION NO.90 of 2017

¶28

23.03.2021

¶29

Kanchi Lakshmi, v. Kanchi Veerabhadra Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kanchi Lakshmi, v. Kanchi Veerabhadra Rao

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Turaga Vijaya Saradhi Vs Vadluri Someswara Rao (died)

Mathala Srinu, Vs State of Andhra Pradesh

Iragamreddy Naga Dasthagiri Reddy, Vs The State of Andhra Pradesh

N.Venkateswara Rao Vs State of Ap

Leburi Maruthi Krishna, Prakasam Dist Vs L Sailaja, Prakasam Dist

Pathalavath Bhavani Vs Thirlika China Yegaiah at Yegeswara Rao