IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.782 of 2010 1. BIBI SABNAM ARA W/O MD. QAISAR ALI R/O MOH- SADARUDDIN CHAK, P.S. HABIBPUR, TOWN & DISTT. BHAGALPUR Versus 1. THE STATE OF BIHAR THROUGH THE DISTRICT MAGISTRATE BHAGALPUR 2. THE LAND REFORMS DEPUTY COLLECTOR BHAGALPUR 3. MD. ZAFARULLAH S/O LATE MD. KHALILUR RAHMAN MOH- TATARPUR ROAD, P.S. TATARPUR, SUB-REGISTRY OFFICE AND DISTT. BHAGALPUR 4. MD. NASIR KHAN S/O LATE WAZID ALI KHAN MOH- DAUDCHAK, P.S. HABIBPUR, DISTT. BHAGALPUR 5. BIBI FAHMIDA RAHMAN W/O MD. NASIR KHAN R/O VILL- DAUDCHAK, P.S. HABIBPUR, DISTT. BHAGALPUR ----------- 3. 04.04.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Counsel for the State as also the learned Counsel for Respondents 4 & 5. Respondent no. 5 filed Title Suit No. 25 of 2009 and made a prayer for injunction. It was rejected by the learned Munsif at Bhagalpur on 24.4.2009 by a reasoned and considered order as discussed therein. Respondent no. 5 then preferred Misc. Appeal No. 16 of 2009 against the same before the 3rd Additional District Judge at Bhagalpur which has been allowed. Aggrieved thereby the petitioner who is defendant in the suit has preferred this writ application. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate order does not contain any reasoning or discussion for upsetting the otherwise considered findings of the learned Munsif for which he declined injunction. Counsel for the Respondents 4 and 5 are unable to demonstrate from the cryptic reasoning contained in para 6 of the appellate order as to on what grounds and for what reasons the appellate court arrived at the conclusion that the learned Munsif had erred in declining injunction. An order of a Court amenable to judicial review is required to be reasoned and discussed. This requirement becomes more onerous when the appellate order upsets the original order. There are then two rival competing orders to be considered by the next superior Court. Unless and until the appellate court spells out the reasons why it was satisfied for the need to upset the original order, the appellate order becomes arbitrary hindering judicial review. The appellate order at para 6 does not disclose any consideration of the reasoning done by the original Court and how it was erroneous. The mere recitals of platitude that prima facie case and balance of convenience lies in their favour shall not suffice. The appellate order dated 23.11.2009 is set aside and the matter is remanded to the Court of 3rd Additional District Judge, Bhagalpur to hear the parties afresh and pass a fresh reasoned and speaking order. The writ application stands allowed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)