JUDGMENT:

1. This C.M.A. is filed ventilatingthe grievance of defendant in O.S.No.564 of 2010 on the file of I Additional Senior Civil Judge, Nelloreas his application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code,1908 was dismissed, vide the impugned order dated 01.04.2013in I.A.No.142/2012.

2. The grievance of the Appellant inI.A.No.142/2012is that suit summons were not duly served and that she came to know about pendency of the suitonly through her relative.She contended that she received notice in the execution petition filed by plaintiff based on the ex-parte decree. Her further submission is that she filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decreei.e.,I.A.No.142/2012from the date of knowledge, but the learned judge without appreciating the facts mentioned in the affidavit has abruptly passed a cryptic orderdated 01.04.2013,thatis liable to be set aside.

3. Vehemently opposing, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff would submit in their counterit has beenclearly mentioned that suit summons were served on the defendant/Appellant personally, and only to drag on the matter they made the Court to pass an ex-parte decree, filed a petition to set aside ex-parte decree at a later stage and as such there are no grounds to interfere in the impugned order.

4. Heard the submissions of both the counsel and perused the material on record. During the course of hearing, learned counsel for respondent fairly conceded that the impugned order is shorn of any reasons for not considering the plea of the petitioner. Both the learned counsel would further submit that the appeal may be disposed of with a direction to the concerned Court to dispose of the suit within a stipulated time.

5. For the sake of ready reference, the penultimate para along with the result in the impugned order of the learned trial judge in I.A.No.142 of 2012 is herewith extracted:

“After careful consideration I come to conclusion that without any whisper of material for the delay of one year two months, filing of this petition to set aside ex-parte decree, dated 26.11.2010 is not tenable and so also the plea and contention of the petitioner that he came to know about the ex-parte decree through his relative is not tenable. Hence, the petition is dismissed with costs”.

6. This Court considers it necessary to deal with the following pointsof consideration in this Appeal;

a. Whether the impugned order passed by the trial Court without mentioning reasons is sustainable under law?

b. Whether the impugned order is on correct lines or it warrants interference of this Court in appeal?

7. First, recording of reasons is mandated in orders as they serve multiple purposes. Primarily, a reasoned order offers clarity to the stakeholders of justice delivery system, it makes the parties aware of why a certain claim is allowed and why a certain contention is negated. Further, itcreates a better opportunity for the courts sitting in appeal/revision to identify the examination adopted in the order by the learned Judge. An order without reasons is like a vehicle without sufficient fuel i.e., its breakdown is inevitable at a later stage of the judicial ladder.

7.1. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Kranti Associates Pvt. Ltd. v.

1 Masood Ahmed Khansummarized the law on recording of reasons observing that it is intended to serve the wider principle of justice,and it also ensures that the discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations.

7.2. InRam Sankar Sahoo v. State of W.B.,2 the Hon’ble Calcutta High Court held that an order without reasons is no order in the eye of law. A Co-ordinate Bench of this Hon’ble Court in T.C.Rajaratnam(died) Vs

3

State of Andhra Pradesh, reiterated the principle that reasons are

1(2010) 9 SCC 496

2 2018 SCC Online Cal 3199

3 (2022) 4 ALT 246

heartbeat of any decision. A bare perusal at the impugned order in this light, would indicate that there has been no consideration by the learned trial Judge except si