AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
T. Ranga Rao, J.—This revision is filed against the order dated 20-9-94 in E.A. No. 15 of 1988 in E.P. No. 13 of 1988 in O.S. No. 299 of 1975 on the file of the Subordinate Judge, Medak.
The learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the respondent obtained a decree in O.S. No. 299 of 1975 on the file of the IV Addl. Judge, City Civil Court, Hyderabad on 20-4-1976 and he filed EP for execution of the decree and it was sent to the Subordinate Judge, Medak on 22-4-1988 and the petitioner/J.Dr. filed E.A. No. 15 of 1988 contending that the said E.P. was barred by limitation. He further submits that the learned Subordinate Judge, without assigning any reasons, dismissed the said application, and as the E.P. is filed beyond 12 years, it is barred by limitation and requested to set aside the same.
But the learned Counsel for the respondent submitted that the decree was obtained on 20-4-1976 and as the E.P. was filed on 18-4-88, it is not barred by limitation and the learned Subordinate Judge is justified in dismissing the said application.
Therefore, it is to be seen that the learned Subordinate Judge passed a cryptic order as follows:-
" ..Heard both Counsels. It is seen that decree is in time and it does not suffer from infirmities like limitation. Petition dismissed...."
The contention of the J.Dr. is that the E.P. is barred by limitation and the learned Subordinate Judge is expected to give the date of obtaining the decree and date of filing E. P. to find out whether the E.P. is barred by limitation and without mentioning the said details, he passed the impugned order stating that it does not suffer from any infirmities like limitation, This Court, on several occasions, deprecated passing of single line cryptic orders and in spite of it the Subordinate Officers are passing such cryptic orders even without mentioning the basic details and reasons for coming to such conclusion; consequently, abnormal delays are being caused for the disposal of the matters in question and in this case, the E.P. is pending from 1988 onwards till today, on account such type of order. Therefore, it is difficult to sustain the order in question and accordingly, it is set aside the civil revision petition is allowed and the matter is remanded to the Court below with a specific direction to dispose of the matter within 15 days from the date of receipt of the order and sent compliance report to this Court.