(1) IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, AURANGABAD BENCH, AT AURANGABAD. Writ Petition No. 112 of 2009 Vilas s/o. Narayanrao Basatwar, Age : 49 years, Occupation : Business, Nath Super Market, Aurangpura, Aurangabad. .. Petitioner. versus Chandrakant s/o. Narayanrao Basatwar, Age : 58 years, Occupation : Business, R/o. Chandrasheel, Rajendra Nagar, Opp. Mahatma Phule High School, Nanded, District : Nanded. .. Respondent. .................. Mr. V.D. Salunke, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. N.N. Chitlange, Advocate, for the respondent. .................. CORAM : B.R. GAVAI, J. DATE : 17TH JUNE 2009. COURT’S ORDER : 1. Rule. Rule made returnable forthwith. Heard by consent. (2) 2. By way of present petition, the petitioner challenges the order dated 29th September 2008, passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Nanded, below Exhibit 45 in Special Civil Suit No. 149/2006, thereby allowing the application filed by the present respondent and directing the present petitioner to produce the documents described in the application. 3. The plaintiff has filed suit for a declaration, that there is no transaction regarding sale or purchase of the ornaments of the plaintiff's mother between the plaintiff and defendant. 4. After the evidence of both the parties was closed, an application came to be filed below Exhibit 45, seeking a direction to the present petitioner to produce pass-books or statements of all bank accounts, whether closed or existing, of the present petitioner. The said application has been allowed by the trial court by following order : " Considering facts of the case, defendant is hereby directed to produce the document described in the application. " 5. The application filed by the present respondent has been filed after the evidence was closed by both the parties. Not only that, there is not even a whisper in the application as to why the application is being filed at such a belated stage and as to how the said documents are relevant for adjudication of the suit. Not only that, but by the said application, the plaintiff has sought for all the pass-books of the (3) petitioner and statements of all bank accounts, whether existing or closed. The learned trial Judge has been gracious enough to allow the application by the aforesaid so called reasoned order. 6. By now, it is well settled law, that not only judicial, but even quasi judicial authorities are required to give reasons for passing an order. No doubt, that the reasons may be brief, but they should reflect the mind of the judicial or quasi judicial authority, as to why such an order is being passed. It is a settled law, that the reasons are live link between considerations that weigh with the decision making authority and the final outcome. The reasons are also necessary, so that the powers of the judicial review are properly exercised by the appellate authorities, inasmuch as, they know as to what weighed with the authority, of which the order is impugned. 7. As already reproduced hereinabove, the only reasoning that appears to have weighed with the learned trial Judge is, "considering facts of the case". I am unable to persuade myself that the said reasoning can be said to be even a brief reasoning. In that view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be quashed and set aside. 8. The petition is, therefore, allowed. Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause "B". Needless to state, that if the respondent is entitled in law to file any fresh application, he would be entitled to do so. If such an application is filed, the learned trial Judge shall decide the same, in accordance with law and specifically in the light of the observations made herein above. (4) 9. In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs. ( B.R. GAVAI ) JUDGE ...................... bgp/wp112