THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.6103 of 2010 & 436 OF 2011 COMMON ORDER: These Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the order, dated 12.07.2010, in I.A.Nos.101 of 2010 and 102 of 2010 in O.S.No.47 of 2009 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Huzurabad, Karimnagar District filed by the defendants 1 and 2 for condoning the delay of 76 days under Section 5 of the Limitation Act in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, dated 29.01.2010. 2. Heard both sides. Perused the records. 3. As the two Civil Revision Petitions arise out of the same suit and between the same parties, they are heard together and are being disposed of together by this common order. 4. Petitioner herein filed the suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession and also for mandatory injunction in respect of the plaint schedule plot. The suit ended in a decree on 29.01.2010. Respondents- defendants 1 and 2 filed two separate applications for setting aside the ex parte decree together with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay. Petitioner herein-plaintiff filed a detailed counter opposing the said applications inter alia contending that the decree passed on 29.01.2010 was a decree on merits and not an ex parte decree and so the provisions of Order IX Rule 13 CPC are not applicable. The trial Court, without adverting to the contentions of both parties and without considering the matter on its merits, disposed of the applications by a cryptic order which reads thus: “Heard. Petition is allowed on payment of costs of Rs.100/- payable on or before 09.11.2010 failing which petition shall stand dismissed”. 5. The above said order, to say the least, does not answer the description of a judicial order as it does 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. 6. In the circumstances, it is held that the impugned order in both the petitions is wholly unsustainable and it is liable to be set aside and the same is 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. 7. Civil Revision Petitions are disposed of accordingly. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY, J 12th December, 2011. Tsy