THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA and THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS APPEAL No.26 of 2010 JUDGMENT: (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice N.V.Ramana) This civil miscellaneous appeal is filed against the order dated 04.12.2009 passed in I.A.No.805 of 2008 in O.S.No.227 of 2007 on the file of the Senior Civil Judge’s Court, Gudur, Nellore District. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents herein filed the suit in O.S.No.227 of 2007 before the Court below, against the appellant herein, for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. During the pendency of the said suit, the respondents-plaintiffs filed the present application, stating that the petitioner-defendant alone is enjoying the agricultural produce of the suit schedule lands, that they are entitled to half share in the same, and they are facing hardship in meeting their basic needs, and thus they have prayed for appointment of a Commissioner/Receiver to verify the accounts, take possession of the agricultural produces of the suit schedule lands, conduct sale of the same and deposit the sale proceeds into Court for proper distribution of mesne profits between the parties, or in the alternative conduct auction in public Court for yearly leasehold rights of the suit schedule lands and order for the deposit of yearly lease amount into Court for proper distribution of the same as mesne profits between the parties. The appellant-defendant contested the application, by filing counter. The Court below, by the impugned order dated 04.12.2009, appointed the Commissioner to sell the property, after ascertaining its income, and deposit the sale proceeds into Court. Aggrieved thereby, the present civil revision petition is filed by the appellant-defendant. Heard the learned counsel on record. We have perused the impugned order. The impugned order is cryptic and not supported by any reasons for appointing the Commissioner for conducting sale of the agricultural produce of the suit schedule lands, and the factual as well as the legal aspects involved are not considered by the Court below. Reasons being live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at, the Court below, while passing the impugned order, ought to have assigned reasons, as otherwise it will amount to denial of justice. The necessity to record reasons in judicial orders was highlighted by the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar[1], wherein it held that right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court, that another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him, and one of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made. In the light of these principles enunciated by the Supreme Court, the impugned order, which does not assign any reasons, deserves to be set aside and the matter needs to be reconsidered by the Court below. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law, by a reasoned order, after hearing the parties and taking into consideration all the factual and legal aspects involved, as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The civil miscellaneous appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above. No order as to costs. ___________________________ JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA ____________________________ JUSTICE NOUSHAD ALI 15th February, 2010 IBL [1] (2004) 5 SCC 568