Judgment :- This is a revision preferred by the respondents in I.A.No.4 of 2007 in Wakf O.P.No.2 of 2007 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam. 2. The respondents herein preferred Wafk O.P.No.2 of 2007 before the court below for a decree of permanent injunction restraining the petitioners herein from interfering with their peaceful possession and enjoyment of the property scheduled in the original petition. According to the petitioners in the original petition the petition schedule property belongs to Haji Katheeja Beevi trust. The founder trustee Haji Katheeja Beevi constituted a trust comprising herself and her husband Haji Abubucker as trustees till their life time and thereafter nominated their son Vanjoor Maricair and their daughter Lathifa Beevi as joint trustees. After the demise of the founder trustee and her husband, Vanjoor Maricair and Lathifa Beevi assumed charge as trustees and they were administering the trust. However Vanjoor Maricair started to deny the trusteeship of Latheefa Beevi and hence she filed a suit in O.S.No.45 of 1975 and obtained a decree for turn management, against which an appeal was filed before this court and in the appeal, the decree was modified with regard to the sharing of surplus income by the turn trustees. It is the further case of the petitioners that after Vanjoor Maricaair, his son Azad @ Ibrahim Maraicair acted against the interest of the Trust and went to the extent of alienating the trust property. The petitioners further contended in the original petition that the deceased turn trustee Azad @ Ibrahim let out the shop building on the southern front side to the second respondent in the original petition and the second respondent even without paying rent squatted over the property and even claimed that the property has been enjoyed by Vanjoor Maricair as his own property. The petitioners also stated that since the respondents attempted to take possession forcibly from them on 24. 2007, they were compelled to file the Wakf O.P for the relief of injunction. 3. The petitioners in the Wakf O.P also filed an application in I.A.No.4 of 2004 for an order of temporary injunction restraining the respondents from in any manner interfering with their peaceful possession of the property till the disposal of the Wakf O.P. In the said interim application, the respondents filed counter and produced as many as twelve documents to substantiate their case. 4. 4. The learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam disposed the interim application as per order dated 7. 2007 by granting an order of interim injunction in favour of the petitioners till the disposal of the original petition. Aggrieved by the said order, the respondents in I.A.No.4 of 2007 has preferred the above civil revision petition. 5. In the above factual background, I have heard Mr.M.Sriram, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mrs.A.V.Bharathi, learned counsel for the respondents. 6. Mr.M.Sriram, learned counsel for the revision petitioners submit that the suit property is presently in the possession of the petitioners and the building is under their lock and key, where they have stored building materials. Learned counsel further contended that the revision petitioners produced voluminous documents before the court below along with their counter and the learned Judge failed to consider any of the documents before deciding the application for injunction. The learned counsel further submits that as per order dated 18. 2007 this court suspended the order of injunction granted by the trial court for a period of four weeks which was subsequently extended from time to time and as such the learned counsel prayed for making the interim order absolute and to give direction to the trial court to dispose the original petition as expeditiously as possible. 7. Mrs.A.V.Bharathi, learned counsel for the respondents contended that the suit property is a trust property and the petitioners have not so far made it clear as to whether they are claiming absolute right over the property or tenancy right alone. It is the further contention of the learned counsel that subsequent to the order of this court dated 18. 2007 the revision petitioners have locked the building and even attacked the son of the turn trustee, which resulted in police registering a case in Crime No.332 of 2007 before the Nagapattinam police, against the revision petitioners. 8. I have considered the order of the Lower court carefully and I do not find any reason, much less prima facie reason, in the order impugned in this revision. The learned Subordinate Judge has observed that as the petitioners have prima facie proved their possession, the injunction petition is allowed and the injunction is made absolute. 8. I have considered the order of the Lower court carefully and I do not find any reason, much less prima facie reason, in the order impugned in this revision. The learned Subordinate Judge has observed that as the petitioners have prima facie proved their possession, the injunction petition is allowed and the injunction is made absolute. It is not stated in so may words as to how the court has arrived at a conclusion with regard to the prima facie case in favour of the petitioners so as to grant injunction till the disposal of the case. 9. While deciding the lis between the parties, Courts cannot put the parties in darkness about the materials which weighed with the court in arriving at the conclusion. Law has developed considerably and now after the introduction of the Right to Information Act, 2005 information pertaining to public authorities are now made mandatory to be disclosed if the information sought comes within the purview of the said Act. Such being the position, the Courts though are not liable to furnish the information like public bodies are still expected to reveal the reasons in the order which made the court in passing the particular order. The order of the Subordinate Courts are appealable before the higher courts and in case reasons are given, it would enable the appellate court to appreciate the matter and to resolve the dispute without any difficulty. 10. None of the parties to the proceeding should have a feeling that his case has not been understood by the court in its proper perspective. In case reasons are supplemented in the order, unnecessary criticism of the Courts at the hands of the litigants could be avoided. 11. In the decision reported in 2004 (7) S.C.C. 431 (CYRIL LASRDO v. JULIANA MARIA LASRADO) the Apex Court held as follows:- "11. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Courts judgment not sustainable. 12. Even in respect of administrative orders, Lord Denning, M.R., in BREEN v. AMALGAMATED ENGG. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Courts judgment not sustainable. 12. Even in respect of administrative orders, Lord Denning, M.R., in BREEN v. AMALGAMATED ENGG. UNION Observed: (ALL ER p.1154) "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration." In ALEXANDER MACHINERY (DUDLEY) LTD. v. CRABTREE it was observed: "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice. Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision-taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at." Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reason is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of the sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." 12. The facts of the case, as projected by the parties, requires adjudication at the earliest point of time. Therefore to meet the ends of justice, there will be a direction to the learned Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam to hear the injunction petition in I.A.No. 4 of 2007 in Wakf O.P.No. 2 of 2007 afresh after giving an opportunity to both the parties. Since the factum of storing the materials in the building by the revision petitioners is more or less an admitted position and as this court has already passed an order on 18. 2007 suspending the order of injunction granted by the trial court, status-quo as on this day has to be preserved till the disposal of the injunction petition. However such an order of status quo cannot be construed to be an order enabling the revision petitioners to undertake construction work in the suit property or other activities pending disposal of the injunction petition. The property has to be preserved in the present position. However such an order of status quo cannot be construed to be an order enabling the revision petitioners to undertake construction work in the suit property or other activities pending disposal of the injunction petition. The property has to be preserved in the present position. The trial Court is directed to dispose I.A.No.4 of 2007 within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Both the parties are directed to co-operate with the court below for early disposal of the matter. The trial Court has to decide the matter on merits without in any way being influenced by the observations made in this order. 13. With the above observation, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The order dated 7. 2007 made in I.A.No. 4 of 2007 in Wakf O.P.No. 2 of 2007 on the file of Subordinate Judge, Nagapattinam is set aside. Consequently, the connected MP is closed. No costs.