ORDER : Heard Mr. Shyam S. Agarwal, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr.M.Rama Krishna, learned counsel for the respondents. Perused the record. 2. This Civil Revision petition is filed aggrieved by the order dated 01.02.2024 in I.A. No. 2289 of 2022 in O.S. No. 10 of 2015 on the file of learned IX Additional Chief Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad, (for short, ‘the trial Court’), wherein, the petition filed under Order I Rule 10(2) and (4) of the CPC read with Rule 28 of the Civil Rule of Practice and Section 151 of the CPC, with a prayer to implead the petitioner and respondent No. 11 as defendant Nos. 4 and 5 and to delete the paragraph No. 19 of the plaint and to substitute the same with a fresh paragraph, has been allowed. 3. The background facts leading to filing of the Civil Revision Petition are that the deceased respondent No. 1 and the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 have filed suit in O.S. No. 10 of 2015 for delivery of vacant peaceful possession of 1373.5 square feet of super built-up commercial area along with proportional undivided share of land in the building being constructed in the suit schedule property towards their share in the agreed 11,000 square feet in terms of the sale deed bearing document No. 4643 of 1995 dated 11.08.1995 and agreement dated 11.08.1995 and also under document No. 4124 of 2008 dated 14.09.2008. During pendency of the suit, the deceased respondent No. 1 died and her LR’s were brought on record as the respondent Nos. 4 to 8. The defendants remained ex parte in the suit and the matter was coming up for evidence of P.W. 1. Till that point of time the respondents/plaintiffs were under the impression that the respondent No. 7 is constructing the building over the suit schedule property. However, subsequently they have learnt that the respondent No.9 has transferred the rights to M/s. MPM Hotels Limited (earlier M/s. MMVL Hotels Limited) under registered sale deed document No. 1854 of 2007, alleging that it has become owner of the suit schedule property under sale deeds bearing document Nos. 2783 of 2000 and 3304 of 2000. The said M/s.MPM Hotels Limited, has further created third party interest by executing a development agreement-cum-GPA bearing document No. 176 of 2016 in favour of M/s. Vasavi Nirmaan Private Limited. 2783 of 2000 and 3304 of 2000. The said M/s.MPM Hotels Limited, has further created third party interest by executing a development agreement-cum-GPA bearing document No. 176 of 2016 in favour of M/s. Vasavi Nirmaan Private Limited. On the basis of said development agreement, M/s. Vasavi Nirmaan Private Limited, started construction of a 15 storied commercial complex in the suit schedule property. The. Respondents/plaintiffs have pleaded that M/s.MPM Hotels Limited and M/s. Vasavi Nirmaan Private Limited, are claiming interest over the situated property in which the original defendants have undertaken to allot 11,000 square feet of commercial space with proportionate undivided share of the land. The M/s.MPM Hotels Limited and M/s. Vasavi Nirmaan Private Limited are pendent lite transferees and they are likely to resist the decree on the pretext that they are not parties to the suit and as such they are not bound by the decree. Therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and since M/s.MPM Hotels Limited and M/s. Vasavi Nirmaan Private Limited, are necessary parties for the purpose of implementing the decree, the implead petition is filed to implead the proposed parties as they defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the main suit. When said application came up for hearing, the trial Court has passed the following docket order dated 01.02.2024: “It is seen that respondent No.3 counter already treated as nil and steps of respondent No.4 already taken and respondent No.4 is already been set ex parte. Heard the petitioner counsel. The I.A. is allowed and respondent No.3 and respondent No.4 be impleaded as defendant No.3 and defendant No.4 in the main suit. For carrying out amendment and filing neat copy. Call on 15.02.2024.” (verbatim reproduced) 4. Aggrieved by the above docket order, the present Civil Revision Petition is preferred. In grounds of revision, it is pleaded that the respondents/plaintiffs have lost the right they had against the petitioner due to passage of several years and they had no right to implead the petitioner and respondent No.11 as defendants to the suit. According to the petitioner, the relief sought against it, is time-bound and therefore, not permissible. Further, it is pleaded that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, which does not explain as to how the proposed impugned parties are proper and necessary parties to the suit. According to the petitioner, the relief sought against it, is time-bound and therefore, not permissible. Further, it is pleaded that the impugned order is a non-speaking order, which does not explain as to how the proposed impugned parties are proper and necessary parties to the suit. In fact, the respondents/plaintiffs themselves did not make any such claim to implead the petitioner and the respondent No. 11. The trial Court has passed impugned order without following the procedure in registering the application and therefore, the impugned order passed is a nullity. 5. Learned counsel for revision petitioner argued that the impugned order does not give any reasons whatsoever for impleading the petitioner herein and respondent No.11 as defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the main suit. It is admitted that there is failure on the part of the petitioner and respondent No.11 in appearing before the Court to defend their impleadment in the main suit as defendant Nos. 3 and 4. However, said situation does not give rise to any occasion for passing an order without reasoning. Learned counsel for revision petitioner referred to judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Company Ltd. and others , MANU/SC/0270/2013 wherein it is held that the Court has to be more conscious while exercising such power where the defendants fails to file the written statement. Even in such circumstances the Court must be satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved in spite of deemed admission by the defendant. The Court must give reasons for passing the judgment. However in short a party must understand what were the facts and circumstances which form the basis for the suit being decreed. In the case of Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad , MANU/SC/0122/2014 it is held that the absence of defendant does not absolve a trial Court from fully satisfying itself of factual and legal veracity of the plaintiffs’ claim. In fact, said situation casts greater responsibility and onerous obligation on the trial Court as well as the Executing Court to be fully satisfied that the claim has to be proved and substantiated to the hilt by the plaintiff. In fact, said situation casts greater responsibility and onerous obligation on the trial Court as well as the Executing Court to be fully satisfied that the claim has to be proved and substantiated to the hilt by the plaintiff. In the case of Deepak Kapoor and others v. Ashok D Mehta and others , MANU/UC/0053/2021 the High Court of Uttarakhand, held that a judgment pronounced under Order VII Rule 10 of CPC should implicate that a Court has applied its mind on the merits of the case. It is the duty of Court to consider the case of the plaintiff on merits after giving him opportunity to adduce his evidence and the judgment pronounced under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC must satisfy the requirements of Section 29 of the CPC. Lastly, in the case of Muthu kumar v. P. Sundar , MANU/TN/7177/2024 the High Court of Madras held that whether the defendants contest the suit or remains ex parte, then also the trial Court has a duty to follow Order XX Rule 4 of the CPC. On the basis aforementioned judgments, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that just as in a suit, in an interlocutory application, the Court is under obligation to give the ingredients of concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. 6. In the instant case, the petition is filed under Order I Rule 10(2) and (4) of the CPC, to implead the petitioner and respondent No. 11 as defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the main suit. The docket order has no reference to the pleadings of the affidavit. It is a cryptic order stating that notice is served on the implead petitioners either directly or through substituted service and proceeded to implead the parties without giving any reasoning. In view of the foregoing, it is prayed that the impugned order be set aside and the I.A. be remanded back to give an opportunity to the revision petitioner herein and respondent No. 11 to file counter and contest the interlocutory application on merits. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the Petition alleging that the petitioner herein and respondent No. 11 were given opportunity to contest the interlocutory application before the trial Court by serving notice. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the Petition alleging that the petitioner herein and respondent No. 11 were given opportunity to contest the interlocutory application before the trial Court by serving notice. In spite of service of notice, both the proposed parties failed to appear before the Court to contest the application. Thereafter, by perusing the reasons stated in the affidavit, since the interest of the defendant Nos.1 and 2 was transferred pendente lite in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 11, it has become imperative to implead them. In case, the proposed parties are not impleaded, an executable decree cannot be passed, as the pendente lite transferees can always claim that they are not a party to the suit and therefore they are not bound by the decree. In view of this tricky situation because no executable decree can be passed without the presence of the proposed parties, the counsel for the respondents/plaintiffs argued that the proposed parties are the necessary parties and therefore, the trial Court has rightly impleaded them. 8. Strictly speaking, the case of the petitioner and respondent No. 11 proposed parties does not have much strength about not being given an opportunity to contest the interlocutory application opposing their impleadment. It is a fact borne by record that notice was served on the petitioner herein as well as respondent No. 11. However, they have chosen not to appear before the Court to contest the interlocutory application opposing their impleadment in the main case as defendant Nos. 3 and 4. To this extent, there is no force in the contention of the petitioner about not having an opportunity to oppose the interlocutory application. 9. Coming to the next aspect of the failure on the part of the trial Court in giving a reasoning, the docket order dated 01.02.2024 certainly demonstrates that the proposed parties were impleaded without giving a single line reasoning about the need for impleading them. The trial Court ought to have given a brief reasoning about the need for impleading the proposed parties as defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the main suit. The trial Court ought to have given a brief reasoning about the need for impleading the proposed parties as defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the main suit. The citations relied upon by the learned counsel for revision petitioner though not strictly applicable to the present interlocutory application under revision, the common legal ratio laid down in all the cases is that whenever a decision is given by a Court, the same has to be on the basis of reasoning i.e., whenever a decision is made, said decision necessarily has to be supported by reasons thereof. Any party who is a litigant should be able to understand the basis for a decision delivered one way or the other. The said legal ratio is applicable to all proceedings, whether interlocutory application or main suit. It is further held in the case of Maya Devi (Supra) that in the absence of the contesting party, the obligation on the part of the Court to give reasoning becomes more onerous in order to do justice to the parties who are before the Court and the parties who are not before the Court. This Court also deems that a brief reason could have avoided unnecessary further litigation before this Court. 10. In the case of Shakuntala Devi v. Maya Devi and others, MANU/BH/1751/2023 High Court of Patna, held as follows: “6. The law is well settled that the Courts have ample power to add any person as party in the suit if he is necessary or proper party for proper adjudication of the case. The Court is required to assign reason of any order on impleadment application. Reason is the sole of justice and any judicial order passed by the Court must be speaking. An order disposing of an application necessarily requires recording of reason.” (verbatim reproduced) 11. In the instant case, the affidavit does contain reasons stated by the respondents/plaintiffs for impleading the proposed parties, there is an objection taken by the petitioner to the effect that the reliefs sought against the proposed parties are time-barred. 12. In view of the grounds raised by the revision petitioner, firstly there is a need to give reasoning for impleading the proposed parties as defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the main suit and there is a need to adjudicate whether the issue of whether or not the reliefs sought against the proposed parties are time-barred. 12. In view of the grounds raised by the revision petitioner, firstly there is a need to give reasoning for impleading the proposed parties as defendant Nos. 3 and 4 in the main suit and there is a need to adjudicate whether the issue of whether or not the reliefs sought against the proposed parties are time-barred. In view of the foregoing, there is a need to remand the matter to the trial Court for disposal of the interlocutory application afresh by giving opportunity to the petitioner herein to file counter opposing the interlocutory application. However, given the fact that the petitioner was not diligent in filing the counter before the trial Court, costs of Rs.3,000/- are imposed which is payable to the High Court Legal Services Authority, Telangana, within two (02) weeks from the date of this order. The petitioner herein and the respondent No. 11 are directed to file counter within two (02) weeks from the date of communication of this order to the trial Court and in turn, the trial Court shall dispose of the matter on merits. This Court has expressed no opinion about the merits of the interlocutory application or the merits of the case of revision petitioner. 13. In the result, the Civil Revision Petition is disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any pending, shall stand closed.