Research › Search › Judgment

Telangana High Court · body

2025 DIGILAW 776 (TS)

Gundu Swapna v. Koya Hanumantha Rao

2025-06-09

LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY

body2025
JUDGMENT : LAXMI NARAYANA ALISHETTY, J. Heard Sri Kondaparthi Srinivas, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri M.Kiran Reddy, learned counsel for respondent. Perused the material available on record. 2. This Appeal Suit is filed aggrieved by an ex parte judgment and decree, dated 06.11.2021 passed by the Court of the Agent to Government, Bhadrachalam Kothagudem (hereinafter referred to as “Agent to Government”), in O.S.No.122 of 2019. 3. The appellant herein is the defendant and the respondent herein is the plaintiff in the suit, which was filed for recovery of money basing on the promissory note. For convenience, hereinafter the parties will be referred to as they are arrayed in the suit. 4. Brief facts of the case are that out of acquaintance, the defendant approached the plaintiff and borrowed an amount of Rs.2,50,000/- from him on 21.11.2017 for personal needs with a promise to repay the same with interest @ 24% p.a., and executed the promissory note dated 21.11.2017 to that effect; that in spite of repeated demand, the defendant did not repay the said amount and avoiding the payment on some pretext or other; that subsequently, plaintiff issued legal notice dated 10.09.2018, however, there was no response from the defendant and therefore, the plaintiff filed the suit. 4.1. During the pendency of the suit, plaintiff filed his proof affidavit and Exs.A1 to A3 were marked on 06.11.2021. The defendant remained ex parte and therefore, the Agent to Government decreed the suit ex parte on the same day i.e., 06.11.2021. Aggrieved by the ex parte judgment and decree dated 06.11.2021, the present Appeal Suit is filed by the defendant. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant/defendant had contended that defendant never borrowed the amount from the plaintiff and she never executed any promissory note, much less the suit promissory note in favour of the plaintiff and the alleged signature contained in the promissory note does not belong to her and the same was fabricated and created by the plaintiff for ulterior motives. He further contended that defendant has no knowledge about filing of the suit and no summon was served on the defendant in the suit and consequently, she has no opportunity to defend the suit; that in the judgment dated 06.11.2021 passed in O.S.No.122 of 2019, the Agent to Government has not even mentioned about the service of summons/notice to the defendant and by simply stating that ‘the defendant remained ex parte, decreed the suit and the same is liable to be set aside as no opportunity was given to the defendant to defend the case. 5.1. He further contended that only after knowing about receipt of Garnishee Warrant issued in E.P.No.9 of 2024 in O.S.No.122 of 2019 by the employer of the defendant, defendant approached the Agent to Government and filed copy application to furnish certified copies of documents in the suit and E.P., and thereafter, he filed the present appeal suit. 5.2. Learned counsel for appellant/defendant had contended that the Agent to Government had erred in decreeing the suit ex parte without affording an opportunity to the defendant to defend the case; that the Agent to Government erred in not verifying the fact whether the suit summons was served on defendant properly or not; that the Agent to Government ought to have seen that no notice served to the defendant. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff had contended that the Agent to Government having defendant remained ex parte has rightly decreed the suit; that summons was issued to the defendant by the Agent to Government in the suit on 03.12.2019 and the same was returned unserved with an endorsement ‘refused’ on 12.12.2019; that mere refusal to receive summons amounts to service of summons; that even though summons were served, defendant did not choose to appear in the said suit and considering the fact that defendant remained ex parte, the Agent to Government has rightly decreed the suit by examining the plaintiff as P.W.1 and documentary evidence, marked as Exs.A1-promissory note, Ex.A2-copy of legal notice and Ex.A3-postal receipt and that no grounds are made out to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Agent to Government. 6.1. 6.1. Learned counsel for the respondent/plaintiff had further contended that the plaintiff filed E.P.No.9 of 2024 for execution of decree passed in O.S.No.122 of 2019 before the Agent to Government and the Agent to Government had issued Garnishee Warrant and the employer of the defendant was directed to deduct the salary of the defendant and at the stage of execution of Garnishee Warrant, the defendant filed the present appeal suit after lapse of more than 2½ years, therefore, the same cannot be considered and finally, prayed to dismiss the appeal suit. 7. This Court gave its earnest consideration to the submissions made by the learned counsel for both the parties and perused the entire material available on record. 8. A perusal of the record and material placed on record shows that plaintiff filed the suit for recovery of money before the Agent to Government basing on the promissory note allegedly executed by the defendant and in the said suit, the defendant remained ex parte. However, in the judgment there are no details as to how and when summons were served on the defendant and when the defendant was set ex parte. It is the specific case of the defendant that summons was not served on her and, therefore, she was not aware of filing of the suit and passing of ex parte judgment and decree in the suit and that only when Garnishee Warrant was issued to her employer in the E.P.proceedings, she came to know about passing of ex parte decree and she immediately approached the Agent to Government and obtained certified copies and approached this Court. From the record, it appears that no notice was issued to the defendant even in E.P.No.9 of 2024 and no reasonable opportunity has been given to the defendant either in the suit or in the E.P. 9. It is pertinent to mention here that the judgment passed by the Agent to Government is cryptic and is bereft of necessary details and reasons. In judicial proceedings, there cannot be arbitrary orders and there must be a reasonable order. 10. In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts held that any order passed by a Court or a quasi-judicial authority or a Tribunal shall record reasons for its conclusions. 11. In judicial proceedings, there cannot be arbitrary orders and there must be a reasonable order. 10. In a catena of judgments, the Hon’ble Apex Court and various High Courts held that any order passed by a Court or a quasi-judicial authority or a Tribunal shall record reasons for its conclusions. 11. In Kranti Associates v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering various judgments, formulated certain principles which are set out below:- “(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the life blood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or 'rubber-stamp reasons' is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny (See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-737) ; (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. See Ruiz Torija v. Spain (1994) 19 EHRR 553 at 562 para 29 and Anya v. University of Oxford [2001] EWCA Civ 405, wherein the court referred to article 6 of European Convention of Human Rights which requires, 'adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decision.' (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of 'due process'." Following the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates (one cited supra), the High Court of Gujarat in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works Vs. State of Gujarat and others, 2022 SCC Online Guj 2530 observed as under:- “At the outset, we notice that it is settled legal position of law that reasons are heart and soul of the order and non communication of same itself amounts to denial of reasonable opportunity of hearing, resulting in miscarriage of justice. This court is bound by the said judgments hereinafter referred to. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came for consideration before the Supreme Court in several cases. This court is bound by the said judgments hereinafter referred to. The necessity of giving reason by a body or authority in support of its decision came for consideration before the Supreme Court in several cases. Initially, the Supreme Court recognized a sort of demarcation between administrative orders and quasi- judicial orders but with the passage of time the distinction between the two got blurred and thinned out and virtually reached a vanishing point in the judgment of the Supreme Court in A. K. Kralpak v. Union of India (1970) 1 SCR 45. The honourable Supreme Court vide judgments in the cases of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector Raigad (2012) 4 SCC 407 , Sant Lal Gupta v. Modern Cooperative Group Housing Society Limited (2010) 13 SCC 336 ; Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan (2010) 9 SCC 496 and Abdul Ghaffar v. State of Bihar (2008) 3 SCC 258 , has expanded the horizon of natural justice and reasons have been treated part of the natural justice. It has gone to the extent in holding that reasons are heart and soul of the order.” 12. Thus, the position of law that emerges from the decision mentioned above is that assignment of reasons is imperative in nature and the speaking order doctrine mandates assigning the reason which is the heart and soul of the decision and said reasons must be the result of independent re-appreciation of evidence adduced and the documents produced in the case. 13. In the instant case, the Tribunal has evidently not adverted to the contentions set out in the affidavits, filed in support of the aforesaid applications, as well as the contentions raised by the respondents therein in the counter and allowed the application by way of a cryptic single line order. 14. In the light of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates (first cited supra) and the judgment of the High Court of Gujarat in Aggarwal Dyeing and Printing Works (second cited supra), it is to be held that the reasons, which are the heart and soul of the order, are obviously missing in the impugned order. Therefore, the impugned order dated 06.11.2021 is unsustainable in the eye of law. 15. Therefore, the impugned order dated 06.11.2021 is unsustainable in the eye of law. 15. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the Agent to Government has not given reasonable opportunity to the defendant to defend her case either in the suit or in the execution petition. 16. Accordingly, the Appeal Suit is allowed and the impugned judgment and decree dated 06.11.2021 passed by the Agent to Government in O.S.No.122 of 2019 is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Agent to Government for fresh disposal by duly giving opportunity to both sides on its own merits, as expeditiously as possible, uninfluenced by any observations made by this Court in this order. There shall be no order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, shall stand closed.