HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.2024 of 2024

ORDER:

The Civil Revision Petition is filed by the petitioner aggrieved by the order and decree dated 17.05.2024 passed in I.A.No.252 of 2020 in O.S.No.208 of 2023 by the Court of the Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem District.

2. The petitioner herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit. For convenience, the parties hereinafter referred to as they were arrayed in the suit.

3. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff filed suit vide O.S.No.208 of 2023 under Rule 7 and 14 of Telangana Agency Rules, 1924, read with Section 26 Order VII Rule 1 and 2 of CPC for declaration and consequential injunction and rectification of revenue entries under Sections 34 and 38 of Specific Relief Act, 1963. During the pending of the said suit., the defendant filed I.A.No.252 of 2020 seeking rejection of plaint, on the ground that there is no cause of action for filing of the suit and that the suit is barred by limitation. The Agent to Government, Bhadradri Kothagudem vide order dated 17.05.2024, dismissed the said application. Aggrieved by the same, the present Civil Revision Petition is filed by the defendant.

4. Heard Sri P. Rama Sharana Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant, and Sri P.Chaitanya, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant contended that the learned Agent to Government instead of considering the grounds raised in I.A.No.252 of 2020 and adjudicating the matter as to whether there is any cause of action to file the suit, has erroneously discussed the entire facts of the case on merits and dismissed the said application and thus, prayed to set-aside the same.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner/defendant further contended that the Agent to Government neither appreciated the contentions raised and the material available on record nor recorded reasons for his decision, therefore, it is a fit case for remanding, the matter to the Agent to Government for fresh adjudication on merits.

7. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff contended that the suit filed by the plaintiff was within the limitation and there is cause of action for filing of the suit. He further contended that the learned Agent to Government on due appreciation of the entire material has rightly dismissed the I.A.No.252 of 2020 in O.S.No.208 of 2023 and that the revision is devoid of merits and hence, liable to be dismissed.

8. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the learned Agent to Government has discussed the entire facts of the case, however, there is no discussion with regard to grounds raised by the petitioner for rejection of plaint and further, no reasons are recorded for dismissal of application. It is the bounden duty of the learned Agent to Government to take into consideration the grounds raised in the application, appreciate the same on merits and thereafter, pass a reasoned order.

9. In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts held that any order passed by a Court or a quasi-judicial authority or a Tribunal, it shall record reasons for its conclusions.

10. In Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering various judgments, formulated certain principles which are set out below:-

“(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially.

(b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions.

(c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well.

(d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power.

(e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exe