IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD FRIDAY, THE TWENTY NINETH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND ELEVEN Present HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.277 of 2011 Between: M. Narasimulu .. Revision Petitioner AND Mohd. Ishaq & 3 others .. Respondents The Court made the following: HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.277 of 2011 ORDER: Heard Sri K.L.N. Swamy, learned counsel representing Sri G. Buchaiah Goud, learned counsel for the revision petitioner and Sri M. Salim, learned counsel for the first respondent. 2. The civil revision petition is directed against the order in I.A.No.359 of 2009 in O.S.No.164 of 2005, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Mahabubnagar, dated 10.12.2010, by which the petition filed by the first respondent herein for being impleaded as the 4th defendant in the suit under Order I Rule 10 (2) and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was “allowed after hearing the petitioner”. 3. The first respondent herein claimed that the revision petitioner purchased the property in question from an ancestor of his family who left some place for road as per the lay out plan even before sale. He contended that there was an illegal encroachment by one Goud Jangaiah into the 30 feet road, he being a purchaser from the revision petitioner. The first respondent herein claimed to have approached this Court by way of a writ petition and also the concerned municipal authorities in this regard and that the municipal authorities advised him to approach the civil Court. 4. The plaintiff/revision petitioner opposed the request for impleadment by filing a detailed counter affidavit and the defendants to the suit did not file any counter affidavit to the request. 5. The point for consideration is whether the impugned order is sustainable. 6. As already referred to above, both parties placed their detailed pleadings before the trial Court for and against the request for impleadment of the first respondent herein as the 4th defendant in the suit and the justification for considering the first respondent herein as a necessary or proper party to the suit should have been expressed by the trial Court in its order before allowing the petition. It is needless to emphasize that every judicial order, on merits, requires to contain the reasons for arriving at a particular conclusion in order to enable not only the parties but also any Court sitting in appeal or revision to know the reasons, however brief the reasons may be, that persuaded a Court to pass any particular order. A non-speaking order is alien to the fundamental principles of judicial procedure adopted by the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and, therefore, irrespective of the merits of the rival claims, the matter has to be remitted back for consideration and expression on merits. 7. Therefore, the order, dated 10.12.2010, in I.A.No.359 of 2009 in O.S.No.164 of 2005, on the file of the Junior Civil Judge’s Court, Mahabubnagar, is set aside and the said I.A.No.359 of 2009 is remitted back to the trial Court for determination on merits in accordance with law through a reasoned order after giving a reasonable opportunity of hearing to both parties. The Civil Revision Petition is ordered, accordingly, without costs. _____________________ G. BHAVANI PRASAD, J Date: 29th July, 2011 KL HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G. BHAVANI PRASAD CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.277 of 2011 Date: 29th July, 2011 KL