ORDER
C.Y. Somayajulu, J.
1. The order dated 7-7-2003 in I.A. No. 298 of 2003 in O.S. No. 18 of 2002 on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Wanaparthy, is a subject matter of this revision.
2. The revision petitioner filed the suit against the respondent on the foot of a promissory note. The respondent filed his written statement and: is contesting the suit. After the revision petitioner examined himself as P.W. 1 in Chief on 13-3-2003, the respondent filed I.A. No. 298 of 2003 under Order 11, Rule 14 of CPC to direct the revision petitioner to produce the account books pertaining to the fertilizers and pesticides maintained by him from 1999 to 2002. The revision petitioner filed his counter contesting the petition. On 7-7-2003, the learned Senior Civil Judge passed the following order.
'Heard the counsel for petitioner. Respondent has not submitted any arguments. It appears respondent's counsel has no arguments to submit. Hence the petition is allowed without costs.'
3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the order under revision cannot be said to be a judicial order and as such is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside because no reasons are mentioned as to why and how the petition is being allowed.
4. I find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the revision petitioner. Judicial orders are expected to be speaking orders. When revision petitioner filed counter opposing the application merely because the counsel for the revision petitioner in the trial Court did not submit his arguments, it cannot be taken to mean that the petition can be allowed even without the Court applying its mind to what the petition is and if it has merits or not. It is well known that even in cases where the other party chooses to remain ex parte the Court has to apply its mind and pass speaking order, giving reasons for its either allowing or dismissing the petition. In this case the Court below, without even applying its mind to what the relief sought in the petition is, seems to have allowed the petition only on the ground that counsel for the revision petitioner refused to address arguments. Failure of the counsel to address arguments does not deserve the penalty of an adverse order against the party for whom the counsel is appearing and would not relieve the Court of its duty to apply its mind before passing an adverse order against the party for whom the counsel is appearing. If the refusal to submit arguments is for any invalid reason the Court can bring the conduct of the advocate to the notice of the Bar Council for it take appropriate action against the erring counsel. The Court can no doubt dispose of the case even, when the counsel refused to address arguments but it has to decide the case on merits, by applying its mind and write a reasoned judgment.
5. In the circumstances, the order under revision is set aside and the matter is remitted to the Court below for disposal afresh on merits. The trial Court is directed to dispose of the I.A. No. 298 of 2002 on merits by a speaking order, as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within a period of 2 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.