THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3601 OF 2010 Dated:28.10.2010 Between: Kadiyala Kasi Viswanadham .. Petitioner And Yadlapalli Veeranna Naidu .. Respondent THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.3601 of 2010 ORDER: The petitioner herein is the owner of a business premises at Tadepalligudem. He filed R.C.C.No.10 of 2006 for vacating the respondent/tenant for the purpose of undertaking repairs. The same was allowed on condition that after repairs, the tenant shall be re- inducted. There was some delay on the part of the tenant in handing over the premises. Be that as it may, the tenant thereafter filed E.P.No.207 of 2009 seeking a direction to the petitioner to hand over possession of the petition schedule premises to him. When the matter was coming for enquiry, it appears that the respondent reported no evidence. However, subsequently he filed E.A.No.161 of 2010 in the said E.P., for reopening the matter to examine himself as PW.1 and to mark the undertaking dated 03.10.2007 filed by the petitioner herein. The Court below by impugned order dated 28.06.2010 allowed the said E.A., observing as under. Orders pronounced. Perused the petition, affidavit and counter. I am of the opinion that the petition will be allowed on payment of costs of Rs.100/- to the other side. In the result, this petition is allowed on payment of costs of Rs.100/- to the respondent on or before 05.07.2010, failing which this petition shall stand dismissed. In the Civil Revision Petition, inter alia, it is urged that the impugned orders are passed without valid reasons. Hence, they are unsustainable. Per contra, the counsel for respondent submits that his client’s application to reopen the matter was allowed only to mark the undertaking given by the petitioner himself, and therefore, no interference is required in the impugned order. It is axiomatic that all judicial orders should be supported by reasons, which weigh with the learned Judge in allowing or disallowing the prayer sought in an application/proceeding. The impugned order does not contain any reasons. Hence, it is unsustainable. Accordingly, the impugned order dated 28.06.2010 is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below with a direction to hear the same afresh and pass a reasoned order. This exercise shall be completed within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The Civil Revision Petition is, accordingly, allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________ (V.V.S. RAO, J) 28.10.2010 Note:- Dispatch C.C. by 30.10.2010 (B/o) KH