IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH AT AMARAVATI WEDNESDAY, THE TWELFTH DAY OF FEBRUARY TWO THOUSAND AND TWENTY FIVE / '/SB^VC. UJ O present THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION petition NO: 2192 OF 2024 Petition under Section 115 of C.P.C, praying that in the circumstances stated in the grounds filed herein, the High Court may be pleased to being aggrieved by the Order dated 13.03.2024 in E.P. No. 36 of 2022 in O.S No.78 of 2020 on the file of the Court of Learned Civil Judge Junior Division, Srungvarapukota. Between: Sri Beela Jogi Naidu, S/o. Late Paradesinaidu Aged 70 years, R/o. Tandrangi Village, Jami Mandal, Vijayanagaram District. ...PETITIONER/PETITIONER/DHR AND Beela Sanyasamma, W/o. Late Demudu, Aged about 69 years, R/o. Tandrangi Village, Jami Mandal, Vijayanagaram District. -RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/JDR Counsel for the Petitioner : SMT NIMMAGADDA REVATHI Counsel for the Respondent : The Court made the following ORDER ; THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE TARLADA RAJASEKHAR RAO CIVIL REVISION No.2192 OF 2024 1 ORDER: -K- The petitioner herein filed suit O.S.No.78 of 2020 on the file of the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srungavarapukota, for specific performance. The matter was referred to the Lok Adalat'. Accordingly, the Lok Adalat has passed an award on 12.11.2022, directing the respondent-defendant herein to register the document and to execute a regular registered sale deed in favour of the petitioner-plainti ff for the schedule land and, in case of failure of the defendant, the Court may register sale on behalf of the defendant in favour of the plaintiff and also deliver possession of the plaint schedule land to the plaintiff. ^ Hence, the petitioner has filed E.P.No.36 of 2022 with a prayer to register the sale deed in favour of the petitioner-decree holder by the respondent-judgment debtor. The said E.P. was dismissed vide order dated 13.03.2024. The Court below has dismissed the E.P. on the letter addressed by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Srungavarapukota.. 2. As seen from the said order dated 13.03.2024 impugned in the present Civil Revision Petition, the Court below has not discussed as to what is the letter addressed by the Joint Sub-Registrar and has not assigned any reasons while dismissing the E.P. filed by the petitioner herein. 3. Learned trial Court Judge has dismissed the E.P. with the following Observation; 4. 2 iff* t I "As per the letter addressed by the Joint Sub-Registrar, Srungavarapukota, this Execution Petition is dismissed as infructuous." 5. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Union of India and others \/s. Dhanwanti Devi and otijers^ regarding the essence that, every decision must be read as applicable to the particular facts proved and every decision contains three basic particulars—(i) findings of material facts, direct and inferential. An inferential finding of facts is the inference which the Judge draws from the direct, or perceptible facts; (ii) statements of the principles of law applicable to the legal problems disclosed by the facts; and (Hi) judgment based on the combined effect of the above. A decision is only an authority for what it actually decides. In order to understand and appreciate the binding force of a decision, it is always necessary to see what were the facts in the case in which the decision was given and what was the point which has to be decided and no judgment can be read as if it is a statute. 6. As held by the Calcutta High Court in Sunil Chandra Dey & another Vs. The State of West Bengal & others^. Judicial orders of such nature need to meet the twin tests of “Why" and “What". It is the “why" that sustains the “what". Reasons are the safeguard, against the ipse dixit of the decision-making process. They discuss how the judicial mind has been applied to the matter in issue and convey the nexus between the matters that have been considered and the conclusion 7. (1996) 6 see 44 ^ 2007 see Online ealcutta 613 3 based on. The justification and the reasonableness of a conclusion depend on the reasons given in support thereof The order impugned has no element of “why” for the “what” therein to stand on. 8. As seen from the judgments of both the Hon’ble Apex Court and the Calcutta High Court, the learned trial Court Judge has not assigned any reasons. Therefore, the order impugned is sustainable and it is liable to be set aside. 9. Accordingly, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed, setting aside the order dated 13.03.2024 and the matter is remanded to the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Srungavarapukota, to pass an appropriate speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. However, no costs. As a sequel, interlocutory applications pending, if any, in this case shall stand closed. SD/- M.PRABHAKAR RAO ASSISTANT REGISTR/^ //TRUE COPY// TION OFFICER To, 1. The Civil Judge Junior Division, Srungavarapukota. 2. One CC to SMT. NIMMAGADDA REVATHI, Advocate [OPUC] 3. THREE CD COPIES Chp TAC HIGH COURT DATED:12/02/2025 ORDER CRP.No.2192 of 2024 'g 0 3 MAR 2025 S! ^ . Cumnt SKUon ^S^gapATCWtS-^ ALLOWING THE CIVIL REVISION PETITION