SHAIK UJAUDDIN Vs. VEERABHADRA UMA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order dated 16-3-2012 in I.A.No.284/2012 in O.S.No.104/2008 on the file of the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri.

(2.) The petitioner filed the above mentioned suit for permanent injunction restraining the respondents herein from interfering with his possession of the suit schedule property. Respondent No.1 is defendant No.3 in the suit. She has filed a written statement denying the petitioner's claim that he was granted patta by the Revenue officials, and has set up the plea that the Tahsildar, Tadikonda village and Mandal has granted patta in her favour. Respondent No.1 has filed the above mentioned I.A. under Order XVI Rule 1 r/w. Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short "the CPC") to issue summons to the Tahsildar, Tadikonda village and Mandal, Guntur District, for giving evidence on her behalf regarding issuance of patta in her favour and also to prove that the Tahsildar has issued notice dated 13-5-2008 to both the parties. The petitioner/plaintiff, as respondent No.1, filed a counter-affidavit resisting the said application. The lower Court by a non-speaking order allowed the said I.A. Feeling aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner/plaintiff filed this revision petition.

(3.) In the first place, it needs to be mentioned that the manner in which the learned Principal Junior Civil Judge, Mangalagiri, has passed the order under the Revision is thoroughly unsatisfactory. When the petitioner/plaintiff filed a counter-affidavit and strongly resisted the application filed by respondent No.1/defendant No.3, it is the duty and obligation of the learned Junior Civil Judge to refer to the respective pleadings and record reasons for allowing the application. The order passed by the learned Junior Civil Judge is bereft of any reasons whatsoever. Such an approach on the part of a Judicial Officer cannot be appreciated.