1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD WRIT PETITION NO. 5784 OF 2009 Sangitabai w/o. Bhausaheb Chindhe, Age 30 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Deoli, Taluka Gangapur, District Aurangabad. .. petitioners Versus 1] Ramkisan S/o. Shahu Karhale, Age 40 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Deoli, Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad. 2] Vilas S/o. Dada Karhale Age 30 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Deoli, Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad. 3] Babasaheb s/o. Ramkisan Karhale, Age 22 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Deoli, Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad. 4] Sunita w/o. Ramkisan Karhale Age 22 years, Occ. Agriculture, R/o. Deoli, Tq. Gangapur, District Aurangabad. .. Respondents. --- Mr. A.P. Bhandari, Advocate holding for Mr. S.V. Gangapurwala , Advocate for petitioner. Mr. A.S. Bajaj, Advocate for the respondent No.1 Mr. V.P. Patil, Advocate for the respondent Nos.. 2 to 4 2 CORAM : B.R. GAVAI,J. DATE : 10th November, 2009. ORAL ORDER :- 1] Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. 2] By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 11th August, 2009, vide which the application filed by the present petitioner for grant of police aid has been rejected. 3] Undisputedly, in a suit filed by the petitioner, an order of injunction granted in his favour by the trial court,has been confirmed up to this court. Alleging that inspite of the order of injunction the respondents were disturbing the peaceful possession of the petitioner and even giving threats to the life of the petitioner, the petitioner has filed an application for grant of police aid. The same is rejected. Hence, the present petition. 4] Shri Bhandari, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the learned trial court has not given any reasons as to why the application for police aid has been rejected. 5] Shri Bajaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.1 and Shri Patil, appearing for the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 support the impugned order. Shri Bajaj, learned counsel submit that one of 3 the factors which weighed with the trial court in refusal of the application is that though the suit has been directed to be disposed of expeditiously by this court, the petitioner is indulging in delaying tactics and as such, no interference is warranted in the impugned order. 6] In so far as the contention of Shri Bajaj regarding the application of the petitioner being rejected on the ground that the petitioner is indulging in delaying tactics is concerned, I am afraid, that the perusal of the entire order would not reveal any whisper about the same. An order has to be read as it is. No party can be permitted to add the reasoning given to the order by the court. 7] It is a settled law that every judicial or quasi judicial order has to be a reasoned order. Reasons have been held to be a live link between the matter considered by the judicial authority and the conclusions arrived at, by it. It is also a settled law that a reasoned order is necessary so that the parties can know as to what weighed with the learned court in passing the order. Reasons are also equally necessary so that the appellate court can exercise the powers of judicial review more effectively, as they are aware as to what weighed with the court while passing the order. 8] Perusal of the order would reveal that except cursorily observing that the there is no grave emergency in granting police aid in favour of the plaintiff, there are no reason as to why the application of the 4 petitioner for police aid has been rejected. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is not sustainable in law. Hence, I pass the following order :- 9] (i) The impugned order dated 11th August, 2009, passed by the learned Jt. Civil Judge (J.D.)Gangapur, below Exhibit 101, in RCS No. 121/2008, is quashed and set aside. (ii) The matter is remitted back to the learned trial court for deciding the application at Exhibit 101 afresh, in accordance with the aforesaid observations. (iii) It is further directed that the application shall be decided as expeditiously as possible and preferably within 4 weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of this order , by the trial court. (iv) Hamdast of the order be handed over to the petitioner for production of the same before the trial court. (v) Needless to state that in so far as the main suit is concerned, the same shall also proceed for disposal in accordance with the directions issued by this court earlier. Rule made absolute in above terms. There shall be no orders as to costs. [B.R. GAVAI,J.] Grt/- 5