APHC010264872024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: Between: Mesa Reddemma Kolla Eswara Prasad Counsel for the Petitioner: 1. JITENDRA KANYALUR Counsel for the Respondent: 1. The Court made the following: 1 C.R.P.Nos.1554, 1555 & 1556 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI CIVIL REVISION PETITION NOs: 1554, 1555 & 1556/2024 ...PETITIONER AND ...RESPONDENT Counsel for the Petitioner: JITENDRA KANYALUR Counsel for the Respondent: The Court made the following: BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1554, 1555 & 1556 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH [3311] THE HONOURABLE MS JUSTICE B S BHANUMATHI 1554, 1555 & 1556/2024 ...PETITIONER ...RESPONDENT 2 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1554, 1555 & 1556 of 2024 COMMON ORDER: All these three revisions, under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, are preferred by the petitioner/wife challenging the docket orders, dated 03.05.2024, dismissing I.A.Nos.80 of 2024, 79 of 2024 and SR IA No.2909 of 2024 respectively in H.M.O.P No.22 of 2020 on the file of the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Madanapalle. 2. Heard Sri Jitendra Kanyalur, the learned counsel for the petitioner. In spite of service of notice on the respondent, none appeared for the respondent. a. The petitioner filed H.M.O.P.No.22 of 2020 for restitution of conjugal rights. It is alleged that the respondent/husband got illicit intimacy with a lady and got a female child through her. The respondent filed exhibits R1 to R4, which are certified copies of judgment wherein the respondent was acquitted on technical grounds. The petitioner traced certain documents which are very crucial to prove her case. b. In this regard, I.A.No.80 of 2024 is filed by the petitioner under Order VII, rule 14 CPC to receive the documents shown below: Sl. No. Date Description of documents 1 19.08.2022 Navasakam Grievance Application WEA (Family Details) issued by the Panchayat Secretary, Chintaparthy GP, Valmikipuram Mandal, Annamayya District (2 in number) 2 Online copy of eService Register of the respondent 3 Online copy of e Service Register of the petitioner 4 Positive Colour Photographs with CD (5 in number) 5 13.04.2024 & 15.04.2024 Three months receipts issued by the N120 Branch, Narayana Educational Society, Tirupati. 3 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1554, 1555 & 1556 of 2024 c. The respondent filed counter opposing the petition stating that the documents filed are created and the photographs were taken while conducting mediation before the Court premises and it is prayed to dismiss the petition. d. The trial court, after hearing both parties, by docket order, dated 03.05.2024, dismissed the petition holding as follows: “ As seen from the record, the OP is filed for restitution of conjugal rights by the wife against the husband and it is coming up for arguments. The record shows that the petitioner was given sufficient opportunities to adduce evidence and finally the matter was posted for arguments. Furthermore, the respondent has contended that the petitioner has not filed any petition to reopen the case though the evidence was closed. Even then the petitioner has not taken any steps to reopen the case. It shows that the petition is filed to delay the proceedings. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court opines that there are no merits in this petition. In the result, the petition is dismissed.” e. Aggrieved by the same, C.R.P.No.1554 of 2024 is filed. f. I.A.No.79 of 2024 is filed under Order XVIII, rule 17 & Section 151, 94(e) CPC to recall the petitioner/PW1 for the purpose of marking of the aforesaid documents. g. The petition is opposed by filing counter opposing the petition and stating that the documents are all created documents and they are inadmissible in evidence and cannot be taken into consideration. There 4 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1554, 1555 & 1556 of 2024 are no grounds to allow the petition. The petition is liable to be dismissed. h. The trial Court, by docket order, dated 03.05.2024, dismissed I.A.No.79 of 2024 observing as follows: “As I.A.No.80 of 2024 to receive documents is dismissed, this petition to recall PW1 is also dismissed.” i. Aggrieved by the same, C.R.P.No.1555 of 2024 is filed. j. I.A (S.R) No.2909 of 2024 is filed under Section 151 and 94(e) CPC to reopen the suit for the purpose of marking the aforesaid documents through PW1. k. The petition is opposed by the respondent/husband. l. The trial Court, by docket order, dated 03.05.2024, returned the petition observing as follows: ‘Since the petitions (i) Recall and (ii) documents petition in I.A.Nos.79 of 2024 and 80 of 2024 are dismissed. Hence, this petition returned.” m. Aggrieved by the same, C.R.P.No.1556 of 2024 is filed. 3. Thus, the orders impugned in these revisions are cryptic and bereft of any reasons much less valid reasons. 4. Time and again, this Court and the highest Courts of the land have held that in matters having civil consequences a reasoned order should be passed. Reasons are held to be the heartbeat of any decision. Reasons should link the conclusions with the factual and legal issues that are raised. Unless and until the issues raised are answered 5 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1554, 1555 & 1556 of 2024 in a proper manner, it cannot be said that the order is a reasoned other. This is a clear facet of the rule of natural justice. The law is too well settled on this aspect to be repeated here and only Kranti Associates (P) Ltd., v. Masood Ahmed Khan1 is referred to for this. This Court has therefore no hesitation to hold that on this ground also the impugned orders must be set aside. 5. It is also pertinent to refer here the observations of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sugandhi (Dead) by L.Rs. and Ors. vs. P. Rajkumar2, wherein it was observed as under:- “ It is often said that procedure is the handmaid of justice. Procedural and technical hurdles shall not be allowed to come in the way of the court while doing substantial justice. If the procedural violation does not seriously cause prejudice to the adversary party, courts must lean towards doing substantial justice rather than relying upon procedural and technical violation. We should not forget the fact that litigation is nothing but a journey towards truth which is the foundation of justice and the court is required to take appropriate steps to thrash out the underlying truth in every dispute.” 6. The trial Court erroneously dismissed the petition in IA No.80 of 2024 on the ground that no reopen petition was filed. If at all, there are any such technical objections; the petition itself ought to have been returned at the time of numbering instead of dismissing the petition after completion of hearing. Except recording the contentions of both parties, the trial Court has not recorded its own finding about the merit or 1 (2010) 9 SCC 496 2 (2020) 10 Supreme Court Cases 706 6 BSB, J C.R.P.Nos.1554, 1555 & 1556 of 2024 demerits in the petition to grant or reject the relief. It merely stated considering the facts and circumstances of the case, there are no merits. Though reasons are to be assigned for any decision of a Court, yet the trial Court failed to record its reasons for the decision. 7. On a consideration of the necessity to file the documents stated in the affidavit filed in support of I.A.No.80 of 2024, this Court felt that it is a case fit to allow the interlocutory application. Accordingly, C.R.P.No.1554 of 2024 is allowed setting aside the order, dated 03.05.2024, passed in I.A.No.80 of 2024. Consequently, I.A.No.80 of 2024 is allowed, 8. As a sequel, C.R.P.No.1555 of 2024 is allowed setting aside the order, dated 03.05.2024, passed in I.A.No.79 of 2024 and consequently, I.A No.79 of 2024 is allowed and PW1 is recalled for the purpose of marking the documents mentioned in I.A.No.80 of 2024. 9. Consequently,C.R.P.No.1556 of 2024 shall automatically stand allowed setting aside the orders dated 03.05.2024, passed in I.A.SR No.2909 of 2024 and directing the trial Court to pass orders afresh on I.A (S.R) No.2909 of 2024. 10. In the result, all these revision petitions are allowed setting aside the orders, dated 03.05.2024, passed in I.A.Nos.80 of 2024, 79 of 2024 and SR IA No.2909 of 2024 respectively in H.M.O.P No.22 of 2020. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. __________________ B.S.BHANUMATHI, J 18-02-2025 RAR