N SUNAJA Vs. KATRAGADDA SURESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision is preferred against the order allowing a petition to set aside the exparte decree dated 6 -6 -2000 in O.P.No.56 of 2000 on the file of the Family Court, Secunderabad. Respondent filed the aforesaid I.A.No. 439 of 2002 for setting aside the exparte order passed in O.P.No. 56 of 2000 which was allowed by cryptic order reading - Publication filed. Respondent called absent, set exparte, petition allowed.

(2.) THE contention of the learned Counsel for revision petitioner is that since the revision petitioner is residing in U.S.A., her mother who was present in the trial Court on the date of hearing had in fact filed the counter affidavit sworn to by the revision petitioner, but the trial Court even without considering the counter affidavit and even without affording an opportunity of making a representation to the mother of the revision petitioner, set the revision petitioner exparte, as she was called absent and allowed the petition.

(3.) SINCE the order under revision does not contain reasons for the Court holding that the petitioner before it (i.e. respondent in this C.R.P.) is entitled to the relief sought, it cannot but be termed as a mute order. A mute judicial order is unsustainable, when it comes up for scrutiny by an appellate or revisional Court.