THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE V.V.S.RAO CIVIL REVISION PETITION Nos.1243 and 1568 of 2009 COMMON ORDER: David's Memorial Socio Educational Association, a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860, represented by its President, Secretary, Treasurer and four others instituted a suit, being O.S.No.92 of 2004, on the file of the Court of the Senior Civil Judge, Tadepalligudem, for declaration that they constitute duly elected management and for an injunction restraining the respondents (hereafter called, defendants) from interfering with the affairs of the Society. They also filed I.A.No.246 of 2004 for ad interim injunction. The same was dismissed by the trial Court on 27.04.2004. Feeling aggrieved thereby, they went in appeal before the Court of II Additional District Judge, West Godavari at Eluru. The same, being C.M.A.No.30 of 2004, was dismissed on 07.08.2008. Aggrieved by the same, C.R.P.No.1243 of 2009 is filed. When C.M.A.No.30 of 2004 was pending, the petitioners filed I.A.No.2353 of 2006 under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to receive additional evidence. The same was also dismissed in view of dismissal of C.M.A.No.30 of 2004. C.R.P.No.1568 of 2009 is filed against the said order. This Court ordered notice to respondents. Notice is served on respondents' Counsel. Notice was taken out by the Counsel for the petitioners. In spite of the same, there is not appearance for them. The only ground urged by the learned Counsel for the petitioners is that the impugned orders do not contain any reasons. This Court has perused the impugned orders. The order in C.M.A.No.30 of 2004 runs into seven pages. Paragraphs 1 to 10 deal with summary of the affidavits, counter, points framed by trial Court for consideration and grounds before the appellate Court. In paragraph 11, the learned appellate Judge observed as follows. Perused the entire order of the Court below and the documents marked on both sides. In view of the above, that this Court do not find any prima facie case or balance of convenience to the case of the petitioners. In view of the lack of the said two ingredients there is no any irreparable loss if temporary injunction is not granted to the Appellants/Petitioners/Plaintiffs. So there are no grounds much less valid grounds to allow the appeal. Only based on the above part the appeal was dismissed. This, in the considered opinion of this Court, is not proper disposal of the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal filed against the Interlocutory Application dismissing application for injunction. The appellate Judge is required to discuss the various grounds urged with reference to the statutory facts pleaded and arrived at conclusions with valid reasons. Therefore, the impugned orders are set aside. The matters are remitted to the learned II Additional District Judge, West Godavari District, Eluru, to consider afresh giving notice to parties and pass appropriate orders with reasons. The Civil Revision Petitions are accordingly allowed. There shall be no order as to costs. ___________ (V.V.S.RAO, J) 04.08.2009 vs