Judicial decisions must contain original reasoning and not merely repeat prior findings; failure to do so undermines the integrity of judicial processes.

ORDER :

1. Heard Mr. Bankatlal Mandani, learned counsel for the petitioners.

2. The instant Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed by the petitioners assailing the order passed by the learned X Additional Chief Judge City Civil Courts, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘First Appellate Court’) in C.M.A. No.116 of 2023, decided on 24.04.2025.

3. Vide the impugned order; the First Appellate Court dismissed the aforesaid C.M.A. directed against the order and decree passed by the learned XX Junior Civil Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Trial Court’) in I.A.No.357 of 2020 in O.S.No.1513 of 2020, decided on 01.08.2023. I.A.No.357 of 2020 was a petition filed by the petitioners under XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’) seeking grant of temporary injunction against the respondent and her privies to remove the iron grills forthwith as shown in the plan annexed with the plaint in the petition schedule property pending disposal of the suit.

4. The Trial Court vide its order dated 01.08.2023 dismissed the I.A.No.357 of 2020, which was subjected to challenge before the First Appellate Court. Incidentally, the First Appellate Court also vide the impugned order dismissed the C.M.A. leading to filing of the present Civil Revision Petition.

5. The main ground of challenge by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the plain reading of the order of the Trial Court and comparing the same with the impugned order of the First Appellate Court would clearly indicate that the First Appellate Court in the course of deciding the C.M.A. had not made any application of mind, but has simply for the sake of disposal of the C.M.A. verbatim copied the findings of the Trial Court paragraph by paragraph. This according to the learned counsel for the petitioners was totally unacceptable proposition where the First Appellate Court instead of deciding the C.M.A. on the basis of grounds raised in the appeal, rather goes in deciding the appeal only by applying cut, copy, and paste principle by bringing forward the entire findings of the Trial Court in verbatim in the course of deciding the C.M.A.

6. Having heard the contentions put forth by the learned counsel for the petitioners and on perusal of records, this Court found that the Trial Court in the course of deciding the C.M.A. at paragraph Nos.10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 of the order has given its findings. Now when we compare the two orders, what is reflected is that, paragraph No.10 of the Trial Court’s order is what is reflected in paragraph No.18 of the First Appellate Court’s order. It is from paragraph No.18 onwards that the so-called findings of the First Appellate Court have begun. Likewise, the contents of paragraph No.19 are exactly the same as those of paragraph No.11 of the Trial Court’s order. Similarly, paragraph No.20 of the impugned order is paragraph No.12 of the Trial Court’s order. So also, paragraph No.21 of the impugned order is paragraph No.14 of the Trial Court’s order, and paragraph No.22 of the impugned order is paragraph No.15 of the Trial Court’s order. Lastly, paragraph No.23 of the impugned order is the paragraph No.13 of the Trial Court’s order.

7. After reproducing the aforesaid paragraphs from the Trial Court’s order, the First Appellate Court had straightaway dismissed the C.M.A.

8. The First Appellate Court in the course of exercising its jurisdiction under Order XLIII Rule 1 of CPC ought to have expressed more facts and should had dealt with the grounds raised in the appeal, rather than getting swa