THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE G.V.SEETHAPATHY CIVIL REVISION PETITION No :5570 of 2006 DATED:20.06.2011 Between: Kamana Vijaya & another. ..... PETITIONERS And Katta Kanakaraju. .....RESPONDENT ORDER: This Civil Revision Petition is directed against the order, dated 08.08.2006, in I.A.No.1001 of 2006 in O.S.No.118 of 2006 on the file of the learned Senior Civil Judge, Bheemavaram, wherein the said application filed by the respondent herein-plaintiff seeking review of the order, dated 31.07.2006, in I.A.No.718 of 2006, was allowed. 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners. None appeared for the respondent. Perused the record. 3. Respondent herein filed the suit for permanent injunction against the petitioners restraining them from interfering with his peaceful possession and enjoyment of the schedule premises as a tenant thereof. Along with the suit he filed I.A.No.718 of 2006 for temporary injunction. Admittedly, the said application was dismissed by order, dated 31.07.2006, and the respondent-plaintiff was directed to vacate the schedule premises and put the petitioners-defendants in possession thereof on 08.08.2006. Respondent-plaintiff has not challenged the order by way of any appeal but filed I.A.No.1001 of 2006 seeking review of the said order under Section 114 CPC. In the affidavit filed in support of the application, respondent-plaintiff has not disclosed any grounds for seeking review except stating that if he vacates the schedule premises by 07.08.2006, the very purpose of filing the suit would be defeated. Petitioner filed a counter opposing the said application contending that there are no grounds for review of the said order. The learned senior Civil Judge allowed the said application by passing a cryptic order as follows: “This is a petition filed by the petitioner-plaintiff under Section 114 of CPC to review the order dated 31.07.2006 in I.A.No.718 of 2006. In the result the petition is allowed, no costs. The following portion viz., “ with a direction that the petitioner can carry on his business which is legally permissible till 07.08.2006 and put the respondents in peaceful possession on 08.08.2006” is ordered to be deleted in the order and decretal order dated 31.07.2006. This review order is made part and parcel of the order dated 31.07.2006”. 4. As seen from the impugned order, it does not appear to be a speaking order recording the contentions of the parties or the reasons for allowing the petition. The impugned order does not also disclose as to the grounds on which the review was ordered. As the impugned order is cryptic and devoid of any reasons for allowing the petition for review and does not record the satisfaction of the Court below, the same is liable to be set aside and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial Court for fresh disposal on merits and passing a speaking order recording reasons for findings. 5. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed as stated above. There shall be no order as to costs. _______________________ G.V.SEETHAPATHY,J 20th June, 2011. Tsy