1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY BENCH AT AURANGABAD. WRIT PETITION NO.7204 OF 2009 Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University, through its Registrar, Dr. Dipak s/o Vishwanath Muley age 52 years, Occ. Registrar of the Petitioner University, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Marathwada University Campus, Aurangabad. PETITIONER. (Orig. defendant.) V E R S U S Ramchandra s/o Santram More, age 78 years, occ. Nil, R/o Jaisingpura, Aurangabad RESPONDENT. (orig. plaintiff.) Mr. S.V. Gangapurwala, advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.S. Naik for respondent sole. CORAM : S. B. DESHMUKH, J. DATE : 1 ST FEBRUARY, 2010. PER COURT :- 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard finally by consent of the parties. 3. This writ petition is filed by the original defendant in R.C.S.No. 907/2008. Indisputably defendant had filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) r/w Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. This application, after hearing the parties, is not disposed of by the trial court. Order passed by the trial court is very significant, which is reproduced herein below :- “Heard both sides whether the cause of action in the present suit is same as in RCS No.766/1972 is a point which require inquiry. Hence this 2 application will be decided with main suit.” 4. It is common knowledge that civil Courts in a country are drowned in oceanic litigation. In a case on hand earlier RCS No.766/1972 was filed and came to be dismissed in default on 22.08.1975. There after present suit RCS No.907/2008 is filed, pending before the Civil Court (S.D.), Aurangabad. Defendant has filed an application under Order 7 Rule 11 (d) r/w Order 9 Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was the legal duty of the court below to decide application after hearing the parties, in accordance with the provisions of law. Order passed by the Court below is lacking reason. Order passed by the court, as a rule or mandate must be a reasoned order. Reason has to be assigned by the court while passing order. To know reason, why the application of one party is allowed or rejected is a human right vested with the litigants to that proceeding. Reason requires to be communicated to the parties i.e. litigants to the proceedings. In this view of the matter, in my view this order needs to be quashed and set aside. 5. Order impugned stands quashed and set aside. Matter is remitted back to the trial court. Trial Court is directed to decide application Exh. 12 in trial court / (Exh.D In writ petition) in accordance with the provisions of law. It is made clear that this court did not enter into merits of the application. Parties are at liberty to attend the trial court . 6. Rule is made absolute in above terms with no order as to costs. ( S. B. DESHMUKH ) JUDGE. aaa/7204.09 ***