THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos. 3998 and 4041 of 2010 Dated: 11-11-2010 Common Order: The 1st respondent filed O.S.No. 34 of 2010 for recovery of possession of the suit schedule property and thereat he filed I.A.No. 1722 of 2010 for receiving of a rejoinder to the written statement filed by the 2nd defendant and I.A.No. 1723 of 2010 being an application under Order VI Rule 17 of CPC for amendment of the plaint. In support of I.A.No. 1723 of 2010 seeking amendment of the plaint, the 1st respondent/plaintiff asserted that though he claimed recovery of possession, by inadvertence relief of recovery of damages for use and occupation was not claimed para 14 and he has also by inadvertence failed to mention the estimation in para 7 of the plaint and this is an inadvertent omission on his part, since as of right he is entitled to recover damages for use and occupation from the date of the suit. The trial of the suit has not yet commenced. The revision petitioner is the same in both these revisions under Article 227 of the Constitution and is the 2nd defendant in the suit. He filed a common counter-affidavit to the applications. While he had no objection to I.A.No. 1722 of 2010 in his counter-affidavit filed, the revision petitioner had pleaded that the amendment to the plaint claiming damages for use and occupation by the defendants does not arise, as he is a tenant of the plaintiff and had been paying Maktha (rents) regularly. His core contention was that there are no merits in the fresh claim now sought to introduced by way of an application for amendment of the plaint. The only error committed by the learned Judge, the Additional District Judge-cum-Family Court, Rajahmundry is in passing non-speaking order dated 3-8-2010 allowing both the applications I.A.Nos. 1722 and 1723 of 2010 recording that the 2nd respondent (the revision petitioner) had filed a counter, but no counter has been filed by the 1st respondent and hence the petitions are ordered. It is axiomatic that even if no counter has been filed, reasons have to be recorded in any judicial order passed. More so, when the revision petitioner, as the 2nd respondent, had filed a counter-affidavit objecting to the relief claimed, specifically in I.,A.No. 1723 of 2010. Though the objection of the revision petitioner to the plaintiff’s claim in I.A.No. 1723 of 2010 do not merit acceptance since his objection is with regard to the merits of the claim and not to the maintainability of an application for amendment at the early stage and before trial has commenced, the court below was obligated to record reasons. In view of the fact that no reasons were recorded as are obligated by law, the order of the court below is unsustainable. However, under Article 227 of the Constitution we would not automatically grant relief on a mere technical error. The conclusion of the court below that I.A.Nos. 1722 and 1723 of 2010 should be allowed does not suffer from any error in the exercise of discretion or in the application of law. The suit is of the year 2010 and the application for amendment was filed with reasonable diligence though after filing of the written statement and the amendment claimed does not specifically alter the nature of the suit or cause any substantial prejudice to the revision petitioner, the 2nd defendant, in the suit. In these circumstances, I am not inclined to interfere with the orders of the court below, though the orders are bereft of reasons. For the aforesaid reasons, the revisions are dismissed at the stage of admission. ______________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 11th November, 2010 GRR