COMMON ORDER:

The petitioners/revisionists are aggrieved by the docket orders dated 15.05.2024 passed in O.S (SR) No.17 of 2024 and O.S (SR) No.19 of 2024 respectively, by which the learned I Additional District Judge, Warangal, found that the petitioners’ Suits were barred by limitation. The Trial Court accordingly directed for listing of the Suits in a regular Court for a detailed hearing on the ground of there being no urgency in the Suits.

2. The above findings were recorded by the Trial Court on the 5 Objections taken by the Office of the Trial Court. The 3rd Objection taken by the Office of the Trial Court is:

“Plaintiff to explain how this Suit is within Limitation.”

3. The petitioners countered the 5 Objections including Objection No.3 on the ground that the Suits are well within limitation as contemplated under Article 54 of the Limitation Act, 1963, since the cause of action for enforcing the consequences of the Agreement of Sale arose for the first time on 03.10.2023 pursuant to the demand notice issued by the defendants.

4. The docket orders which form the basis of the present Civil Revision Petitions are reproduced below:

“This Court is not satisfied with the reasons given by the counsel for objection No.3. As per the contents of the plaint and documents filed, it appears that, the suit is barred by limitation. This Court did not find any urgency and this suit requires detailed hearing on bench.

Hence file this suit in regular court for detailed hearing.”

5. Counsel appearing for the petitioners/revisionists seeks setting aside of the docket orders dated 15.05.2024 passed in O.S (SR) No.17 of 2024 and O.S (SR) No.19 of 2024 and for a direction on the Trial Court to register and admit the Suits in accordance with law. Counsel submits that the Trial Court could not have recorded the finding with regard to the Suits being barred by limitation on the 3rd Objection taken by the Office of the Trial Court without hearing the petitioners/plaintiffs on that score. Counsel submits that the orders in the Civil Revision Petitions were not passed in exercise of the judicial power of the Court.

6. Most significantly, the documents contain the 5 Objections taken by the Office and the replies to those Objections of the petitioners contain: “SR.No.17 of 2024” and “SR. No.19 of 2024”

7. The documents further show:

“O.S.No. of 2024”.

8. The above makes it clear that the findings in the impugned orders dated 15.05.2024 were recorded in unregistered Suits.

9. The difference between the orders passed in exercise of the judicial power of a Court and those which are simply by way of ministerial acts is discussed in the following paragraphs.

10. Judicial orders are distinguishable from administrative orders. In the first category, a Judge applies his/her mind on the facts of the case, the law and the relief prayed for. The decision is pronounced upon considering the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners and those opposing the relief prayed for. The decision is anchored on the arguments made on behalf of the parties.

11. In essence, the submissions made by the petitioners are weighed against the Objections taken by the opponents including on the maintainability of the action before the Court.

12. Determining the maintainability of an action also falls within this category of judicial functions where the Court must consider the relevant facts and the law to answer the question of maintainability. Doubtless, questions of maintainability and limitation require judicial engagement with the matter at hand and are certainly not matters which can be decided by the Office of the Court in its administrative capacity.

13. Judicial pronouncements are mostly on contested proceedings save and except those where an action is decided ex parte on stating the reasons for such or where the Court takes up proceedings suo motu within the permitted contours of its powers. Notwithstanding Section 3(1) of the Limitation Act, 1963 where the Court can decide the point o