IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.13091 of 2010 1. SHRI BINDESHWARI YADAV S/O LATE NAGESHWAR YADAV R/O VILL.- HERU DIYARA,P.O.-HERU DIYARA,P.S.-KASIM BAZAR,DIST.-MUNGER. Versus 1. SHRI RAI BAHADUR DALIP NARAIN SINGH TRUST ESTAE,MUNGER,THROUGH ITS MANAGING TRUSTEE SHRI NARAIN SINGH S/O LATE RAGHUBAR NARAIN SINGH R/O UDDIYAN,DALIP,MAHAL,MOHALLA PURAB SARAI,P.O.- MUNGER,P.S.-KOTWALI,DIST.-MUNGER. 2. DEO NARAIN YADAV @ PESHKAR @ DEO NANDAN YADAV S/O LATE BUDHU YADAV. R/O VILL.-HERU DIYARA ,P.O.-HERU DIYARA,P.S.- KASIM BAZAR,DIST.- MUNGER. 3. MANOJ YADAV S/O SRI DEO NARAIN YADAV R/O VILL.-HERU DIYARA ,P.O.-HERU DIYARA,P.S.- KASIM BAZAR,DIST.- MUNGER. 4. SAROJ YADAV S/O SRI DEO NARA R/O VILL.-HERU DIYARA ,P.O.-HERU DIYARA,P.S.- KASIM BAZAR,DIST.- MUNGER. ----------- 2. 20.01.2011 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and for plaintiff-respondent no. 1. Learned counsel for the parties sought to make detailed submissions on the order dated 24.7.2010, directing restoration of possession through police force. The trial Court noticed the defence of the petitioner that Shree Suresh Prasad after the injunction order in favour of the latter had voluntarily handed over the possession of the suit premises to the defendant. It curiously rejects the defence in a solitary line without reasons by stating that it was not believable that one who had an injunction in his favour would hand over possession willingly. The order can be stated to be presumptive 2 in nature. Prudently, when a defence had been taken it should have discussed and an order passed on factual narration of evidence, documentary or otherwise. These were required to be dealt with or a finding had to be there that no evidence worth consideration was on record. Even a judicial order is required to be reasoned disclosing full application of mind to all issues on record lending transparency to the order and facilitating judicial review. A judicial order sans reason and discussion shall be in violation of the principles of natural justice. The order therefore in its present form is not sustainable. It is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the Court of Additional Munsif 4th at Munger where Title Suit No. 24 of 1997 is pending to pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order in accordance with law preferably within a maximum period of one month from the date of receipt/production based on the materials that are already available with him on record and in pursuance of which the order dated 24.7.2010 came to be passed. The Court finds the additional prayer of the petitioner very reasonable and issues directions 3 for expeditious disposal of the suit itself keeping in mind that it was of the year 1997 without granting frivolous and unnecessary adjournment to either party. The writ application is allowed. P. Kumar ( Navin Sinha, J.)