This CRP is directed against the docket order dated 13-10-2009, passed by the II Additional District Judge, Ranga Reddy District, in I.A. No. 1116 of 2009 in C.M.A. No. 136 of 2008, condoning the delay in receiving the documents and receiving them subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility.

2. The petitioners are the plaintiffs while the respondent is the defendant. The petitioners filed suit in O.S. No. 1740 of 2007 against the respondent on the file of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, for perpetual injunction. Along with the suit, they also filed an application in I.A. No. 1522 of 2007, for injunction. The said application was allowed. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondent filed appeal in CM.A. No. 136 of 2008, and while the appeal is pending, the respondent filed the present application in I.A. No. 1116 of 2009, praying to condone the delay in receiving the certified copy of the judgment dated 8-5-2009 in O.S. No. 594 of 2001, passed by the Principal Junior Civil Judge, Ranga Reddy District, and receive the same. The petitioners contested the said application by filing counter, inter alia contending that as against the said judgment, a regular appeal has been preferred, and therefore, the same having not attained finality, it cannot be received. However, the Court below, by docket order dated 13-10-2009, allowed the I.A. by condoning the delay in receiving the documents and receiving them subject to proof, relevancy and admissibility. Praying to set aside the said order, the petitioners filed the present C.R.P.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that resisting the present I.A. filed by the respondent, praying to condone the delay in receiving the document and to receive the same in evidence, the petitioners filed counter. However, the Court below without hearing the counsel for the petitioners and without adverting to the stand taken by the petitioners in their counter, and without recording any reasons whatsoever, much less its subjective satisfaction, has allowed the present application.

4. He submitted that the manner in which the Court below allowed the present application, without recording any reasons, amounts to gross breach of the judicial process. He further submitted that when an application filed under Order XLI Rule 27 C.P.C. for production of additional evidence at appellate stage is sought to be allowed the appellate Court shall record the reasons for its receiving, and since the Court below, has condoned the delay in receiving the document and received the same, and allowed the application of the respondent, without recording any reasons whatsoever, the same is liable to be set aside, and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the apex Court Basayya I. Mathad v. Rudrayya S. Mathad and others (1) AIR 2008 SC 1108.

5. He further submitted that merely because no prejudice would be caused to the petitioners if additional evidence is received, cannot be a ground to allow the application in a casual and mechanical manner, and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in Vadiraj Naggappa Vernekar (dead) through L.Rs. v. Sharadchandra Prabhakar Gogate (2) 2009 (3) SCJ 365 = (2009) 4 SCC 410. He further submitted that though it is not necessary for the Courts to pass detailed orders in each and every application, but that does not mean, the Court can reduce the exercise of disposal of the applications, to an empty formality and that it is entitled to dispense with the recording of reasons, and in support of this argument, he placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in B. Ramasubba Reddy and another v. Y. Ramakrishna Reddy (3) 2009 (1) ALT 422 = 2009 (1) ALD 279. Placing reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in North Eastern Railway Admn. v. Bhagwan Das, (4) 2008 (6) SCJ 907 = (2008) 8 SCC 511, wherein similar order was set aside and the matter remitted to the High Court, he prayed that the o