1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD LETTERS PATENT APPEAL NO. 153 OF 2009 IN WRIT PETITION NO. 1664 OF 2009 1. Prakash S/o Shivaji Gadakh, Age : 45 Years, Occu. : Agril., 2. Sambhaji S/o Shivaji Gadakh, Age : 40 Years, Occu. : Agril., Both R/o Wambhuri, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. .. APPELLANT Versus 1. Shivaji S/o Eknath Rahane, Age : 39 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o at present Wambhuri, Tq. Rahuri, Dist. Ahmednagar. 2. Dnyandeo S/o Narayan Gadakh, Age : 48 Years, Occu. : Agril., R/o Wambhuri, Taluka Rahuri, District Ahmednagar. .. RESPONDENTS Shri Sachin S. Deshmukh, Advocate for the Appellants. CORAM : B. R. GAVAI, AND N. D. DESHPANDE, JJ. DATE : 25TH AUGUST, 2009. 2 ORAL ORDER [ Per B. R. Gavai, J. ] : 1. The appeal challenges order dated 24th July, 2009, thereby dismissing writ petition filed by the present appellants which in fact challenges order dated 11th February, 2009. 2. The respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for perpetual injunction. In the said suit application for temporary injunction was also filed, same was granted. However, it appears that, the respondent/plaintiff filed an application applying for police protection. The said application was allowed. Being aggrieved by the said order, the appellants filed a writ petition before the Single Judge of this Court and same was dismissed, hence the present appeal. 3. Shri Deshmukh learned counsel for the appellant submits that, the learned Single Judge failed to take into consideration that the order impugned before him was unreasoned order. He further submits that, it is also not taken into consideration that, though appellant had sought for grant of time, the application came to be allowed on the same day. He further submits that, procedure adopted by the learned Trial Court was in violation of settled principles of law. 4. We find that, though the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants that, learned Trial Court has erred in passing non speaking order and not granting time to file reply appears to be justified. However, in our view, entertaining the appeal at this stage 3 will be only of academic interest as much as, the period of seven months has passed from the date on which the police protection was granted. 5. It is settled principle of law that, any judicial order has to be a speaking order. It is well settled that the reasons are like link between the material considered by the judicial authority and conclusions arrived at by it. Reasons are also have been said to be heart beat without which, the orders are lifeless. However, since the police protection was granted for sowing of rabbi season and that period is already over, we do not find any reason to entertain the present appeal at this stage. Appeal is, therefore, disposed of with the aforesaid observations. If the petitioner so desires, he would be entitled to file an application for review before the learned Trial Court and the same would be considered in the light of observations aforesaid. It is further made clear that, if any such application is made by the petitioner, the observations made by the learned Single Judge would not be taken into consideration and application would be considered on its own merits. [ N. D. DESHPANDE, J.] [ B. R. GAVAI, J.] bsb/August 09