THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION No.4361 of 2010 Order: In the suit filed by the petitioner/plaintiff herein for specific performance of agreement of sale, the respondent took a plea that the agreement is forged. She filed I.A. No. 1402 of 2006 under Section 45 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The same was allowed directing to send the disputed signatures along with admitted signatures to handwriting expert of Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.). When the same was returned by the F.S.L., it appears the respondent filed a memo to send other admitted signatures in the Court record. The same was allowed. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner herein filed C.R.P. No.132 of 2009. This Court allowed the C.R.P. observing as under: “The illegality in filing the memo had been specifically pointed out while raising objections in detail. This Court is not inclined to express any opinion touching the merits and demerits. But, however, the practice of filing memo and passing an order on such memo to be deprecated. Therefore, the impugned order is hereby set aside giving liberty to the respondent to move appropriate application, if he is so advised.” Thereafter, the respondent filed I.A. No. 744 of 2010 to send the disputed document dated 29.7.2004 and admitted signatures on vakalat, I.A. notices, suit summons to handwriting expert. By impugned order dated 28.8.2010, the same was allowed by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi, by a three line order, which reads as under: “Orders pronounced. This is a petition to send the admitted signatures on vakalath and served summons and I.A. summons when the signatures are send the expert. The admitted signatures can be consider relevant if the document are sent to expert. Petition allowed.” In this Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, it is urged that the impugned order, without any reasons is unsustainable. This Court finds abundant force in the submission. Repeatedly, this Court has said that any judicial authority is bound to give reasons while passing orders, either rejecting or allowing interlocutory applications. Furnishing of reasons is part of principles of natural justice and if the same is not complied with, orders would be void. This Court already deprecated the practice of passing orders on memos filed by the Counsel. The order impugned is also to be deprecated. All the Courts below are under a duty to give reasons whenever judicial orders are passed, as, otherwise, it would not be possible for the appellate/revisional Courts to appreciate the factors which weighed with the Courts below while passing judicial orders. The Civil Revision Petition is accordingly allowed remitting I.A. No. 744 of 2010 to the Court of the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Tirupathi with a direction to dispose of the matter within a period of four weeks after hearing the matter afresh and giving reasons in support of the order. No costs. ____________ (V.V.S. RAO,J) 18th November, 2010 Note: A copy of this order shall be sent to the Principal District Judge, Chittoor with a direction to circulate a copy of this order to all the judges in Chittoor District for compliance, today itself. B/o pnb