HYDERABAD: Justice J. Sreenivas Rao of the Telangana High Court ruled that quasi-judicial authorities, judicial authorities or administrative authorities must give reasons in support of their verdict while passing orders. The judge was dealing with a petition filed by Rathod Harichand, a resident of Adilabad, who alleged that residents of the district were interfering with his possession of the land. He moved the agency court against the disturbance of his peaceful possession, but it dismissed the case, following which he filed an appeal with the additional agent to the government-cum-project officer, who also dismissed his petition without assigning cogent reasons. The judge, after perusing the records and hearing both sides, disposed of the petition at the admission stage by setting aside the order of the authorities and with a direction to pass appropriate orders per law and by giving valid reasons, within three months.
Defendant can’t change stance through additional statement: HC
Justice A. Santosh Reddy of the Telangana High Court ruled that a defendant cannot change his stance under the guise of filing an additional written statement, and dismissed a revision petition filed by D. Venkatapathi Raju. The petitioner is facing a suit filed against him by D. Rajeshwari Sirisha, who sought specific performance of an agreement of sale deed. He filed an application seeking leave of the court to file an additional written statement. The counsel for the plaintiff/respondent contended that nearly after six years after filing a written statement, the petitioner was now taking a divergent stand in his additional written statement which was not permissible and would put the respondents to prejudice. The judge, after perusing the material available, observed that the inconsistent pleas taken by the petitioner would certainly displace the respondents completely from the admission made by the petitioner in his written statement. The judge ruled that contradictory and inconsistent stands cannot be permitted through an additional written statement that is completely against the stand taken in the earlier written statement, and permitted the respondents and the petitioner to introduce a new plea. The judge accordingly dismissed the suit.
