THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.4842 of 2010 & 5578 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: Civil Revision Petition No.4842 of 2010 is directed against the order, dated 30.03.2007, in I.A.No.1534 of 2006 in O.S.No.207 of 2004 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the application filed for setting aside the ex parte decree, dated 20.04.2005, by the respondent herein, was allowed. 2. Civil Revision Petition No.5578 of 2011 arises out of the order, dated 15.09.2006, in I.A.No.1317 of 2006 in O.S.No.207 of 2004 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Karimnagar, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 446 days in filing the petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree, dated 20.04.2005, was allowed. 3. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 4. Petitioner herein filed the suit for specific performance of suit agreement of sale against the respondent-defendant. The suit ended in passing an ex parte decree on 20.04.2005. Respondent-defendant filed application for setting aside the ex parte decree together with an application for condoning the delay of 446 days. Petitioner herein- plaintiff filed a counter opposing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The trial Court allowed the said application with a brief and cryptic order, which reads thus: “Heard both sides. Perused the affidavit and counter. The reasons given in the affidavit are convincing. It is a fit case to set aside the ex parte decree”. 5. Similarly, the other application-I.A.No.1317 of 2006 filed for condoning the delay was also disposed of by a similar cryptic order, which reads thus: “Respondent called absent and set exparte. Service rendered sufficient. Heard. Perused the affidavit of the application. The reasons given in the affidavit are convincing. Hence, petition is allowed”. 6. The above said orders, to say the least, do not answer the description of a judicial order as they do not contain any reasons for allowing the application, duly reflecting the application of judicial mind. In the absence of any reasons, the order remains a non-speaking order and such order cannot be allowed to stand. When the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC has been opposed by the petitioner herein-plaintiff by filing a counter, the trial Court ought to have considered the contentions raised by both parties and passed a reasoned order duly reflecting the application of judicial mind. 7. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned orders in both the petitions are wholly unsustainable and liable to be set aside and they are accordingly set aside. The trial Court is directed to consider the matter afresh, after giving opportunity to file a counter in the application filed by the respondent-defendant under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and after giving opportunity of hearing to both sides, dispose of the applications on their own merits by a reasoned order. 8. Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of accordingly. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 12th December, 2011. Tsy