The duty to pronounce a reasoned order is a solemn duty of a judicial officer and an indispensable part of a sound judicial system.

ORDER :

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. There is no representation for the respondent.

2. Challenge in this Civil Revision Petition is the order rendered by the Court of II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Warangal, in I.A.No.880 of 2018 in O.S.No.195 of 2011, dated 08.10.2018.

3. A thorough perusal of the record reveals that the plaintiff to the suit i.e. respondent herein filed an interlocutory application vide I.A.No.880 of 2018 under Order 18 Rule 17 read with Section 151 of C.P.C. seeking the Court to recall PWs.3 and 4 to get clarification regarding the typographical mistakes that were allegedly occurred in the depositions given by them. The respondents i.e. the revision petitioners herein resisted the said application on the ground that Order 18 Rule 17 C.P.C. does not empower recall of witnesses for correction of typographical mistakes and that the petitioner/plaintiff is trying to fill up the latches and lacunae in the evidence of those witnesses. While disposing of the said application, the learned Judge passed a single line order dated 08.10.2018, which is as under:

“Heard both sides. In the circumstances the petition is allowed.”

4. As rightly projected by learned counsel for the revision petitioners, what are those circumstances which drove the learned Judge to allow the application are neither revealed nor narrated. Not only courts of law, but each and every quasi-judicial authority is under obligation to pass reasoned and meaningful orders. The orders rendered may be amenable to revision or appeal before higher authorities and Courts. Further, the parties to those orders and the third parties, if any, interested or affected by those orders should also know the details of the facts, the law applied and the mind of the Court which culminated for coming to a certain conclusion. In case, the orders pronounced by the judicial or quasi-judicial authorities are devoid of those details, they can unhesitatingly be termed as ‘cryptic orders’.

5. Time and again, the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court in series of decisions stressed upon the need for passing of reasoned orders by the Courts of law.

6. In the case between S.N.Mukherjee vs Union Of India, 1990 SCR Supl. (1) 44, the Hon’ble Apex Court reiterating that even a quasi-judicial authority is required to disclose the reasons for the conclusions drawn, held as under:

“In Travancore Rayon Ltd. V. Union of India, [1970] 3 SCR 4(1), this Court has observed:

“The Court insists upon disclosure of reasons in support of the order on two grounds; one, that the party aggrieved in a proceedings before the High Court or this Court has the opportunity to demonstrate that the reasons which persuaded the authority to reject his case were erroneous; the other, that the obligation to record reasons operates as a deterrent against possible arbitrary action by the executive authority invested with the judicial power." (P.46) In Mahabir Prasad Santosh Kumar V. State of U.P. and others (supra), the District Magistrate had cancelled the licence granted under the U.P Sugar Dealers Licensing Order, 1962 without giving any reason and the State Government had dismissed the appeal against the said order of the District Magistrate without recording the reasons. This Court has held:

"The practice of the executive authority dismissing statutory appeal against orders which prima facie seriously prejudice the rights of the aggrieved party without giving reasons is a negation of the rule of law." (P. 204) "Recording of reasons in support of a decision on a disputed claim by a quasi-judicial authority ensures that the decision is reached according to law and is not the result of caprice, whim or fancy or reached on grounds of policy or expediency. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the authority has rejected his claim. If the order is subject to appeal, the necessity to record reasons is greater, for without recorded reasons the appellate au