Courts Not Post-Offices for Mechanical Orders,” Asserts Telangana High Court in Setting Aside Amendment Order
In a significant judgement, the Telangana High Court, presided over by Justice T. Vinod Kumar, underscored the necessity of reasoned decision-making in courts, emphasizing that “a court is not a post-office to pass mechanical orders on the applications filed before it.” This observation came as the court set aside an order by the Principal Senior Civil Judge, Medchal-Malkajgiri, which had allowed amendments to a civil suit plaint without adequate consideration of the involved parties’ contentions.
The case, Smt. M.Naga Dhana Lakshmi vs Smt. Premalata S. Savakoor, involved a dispute over the amendment of a plaint in a civil suit initially filed under Section 31 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963. The amendments sought were to change the nature of the suit from a cancellation of documents to a declaration of nullity, based on the Supreme Court’s directives in similar cases.
Justice Kumar, in his ruling, emphasized the importance of adhering to the principles laid down by the Supreme Court for allowing amendments in civil suits. He cited the landmark case Revajeetu Builders and Developers Vs. Narayanaswamy and Sons and Ors, noting, “While deciding applications for amendments the courts must not refuse bona fide, legitimate, honest and necessary amendments and should never permit mala fide, worthless and/or dishonest amendments.”
The High Court’s decision to set aside the Trial Court’s order was based on the lack of reasoned judgement in the impugned order, stressing that “reasons are the heartbeat of every conclusion without which an order becomes lifeless.”
This judgement has been welcomed by legal experts as a reinforcement of the procedural integrity in judicial proceedings. The court has directed a de novo consideration of the amendment application, ensuring compliance with the legal principles established by the Apex Court. The case marks a significant step in emphasizing the need for detailed and reasoned decisions in the judicial process, especially in matters involving significant amendments to legal suits.
Representing the petitioner, Sri. S. Chakrapani argued that the impugned docket order had been passed without considering a previous order by another presiding officer and raised concerns about the application being barred by limitation.
With this ruling, the Telangana High Court has set a precedent emphasizing the necessity for courts to provide detailed, reasoned orders, particularly in cases of substantial legal amendments.
Date of Decision: 14 November 2023
Smt. M.Naga Dhana Lakshmi VS Smt. Premalata S. Savakoor
