Judgment :- Respondents 1 to 4 filled O.S. No. 73 of 2006 in the Court of Senior Civil Judge, Jagital against the appellant and respondents 5 and 6, for the relief of partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. They also filed I.A. No. 361 of 2006 under Rule 10 of Order 39 read with Section 151 C.P.C., with a prayer to direct respondents 5 and 6 herein to deposit the rent for item No. 2 of the suit schedule property, amounting to Rs. 1,60,000/- up to Deepavali 2006 and for the subsequent period with 20% enhancement. The appellant filed counter affidavit opposing the application. Several grounds, including the one, as to the maintainability of the application were raised. Respondents 5 and 6 have also filed counter affidavits, but in a way, have offered to deposit the amount. Through its order, dated 17.10.2008, the trial Court allowed the I.A. Hence, this civil miscellaneous appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was absolutely no basis for respondents 1 to 4 to file an application under Rule 10 of Order 39 C.P.C. and that the facts of the case do not fit into that provision. He further submits that when several contentions are advanced, touching on law and facts, it was obligatory on the part of the trial Court, to deal with the same and instead, a cryptic order was passed, contrary to law and facts. Learned counsel for respondents 1 to 4 on the other hand submits that the trial Court felt that it is in the interest of all the parties, that the amount is deposited into the Court, pending adjudication into the plea for partition, and accordingly passed the order under revision. Respondents 1 to 4 are the daughters of one Sri Mallesham. Srimannarayana, the husband of the appellant herein, was his son. Mallesham died on 22.02.2005 and shortly, thereafter, Srimannarayana died on 02-06-2005. Respondents 1 to 4 filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Item No. 2 of the suit schedule is said to be under lease with respondents 5 and 6. It is not known as to whom, they were paying rents, after the death of Mallesham and Srimannarayana. Respondents 1 to 4 filed the suit for partition and separate possession of the suit schedule properties. Item No. 2 of the suit schedule is said to be under lease with respondents 5 and 6. It is not known as to whom, they were paying rents, after the death of Mallesham and Srimannarayana. Respondents 1 to 4 have also filed I.A. No. 361 of 2006 under Order 39 Rule 10 C.P.C., with a prayer to direct respondents 5 and 6 to deposit the rent for item No. 2 of the suit schedule property. In her counter affidavit, the appellant stated that the marriages of respondents 1 to 4 were performed by selling the ancestral properties of late Mallesham and that items 1 and 2 of the suit schedule are not the self-acquisition properties of late Mallesham. She pleaded that respondents 5 and 6 were inducted as tenants and they were under obligation to pay rent to her. Order 39 Rule 10 C.P.C., is an extraordinary provision, and its application is very limited, in scope. The provision reads as under: Deposit of money, etc., in Court:-Where the subject matter of a suit is money or some other thing capable of delivery and any party thereto admits that he holds such money or other thing as a trustee for another party, or that it belongs or is due to another party, the Court may order the same to be deposited in Court or delivered to such last-named party, with or without security, subject to the further direction of the Court. An application under this provision can be filed only when the subject matter of the suit is money, or an item of movable property, capable of delivery. An order can be passed by a Court on such application, only when a party to the suit admits (a) that he holds money or item of property as a trustee or (b) that it belongs, or is due, to another. Unless these indicia are found to be existing, the Court cannot order deposit of the money or the property into the Court, much less it can direct delivery of the same, to the last-named party, with or without security. Several questions of far-reaching importance arise in the matters of this nature. First of all, Court has to verify as to what exactly is the subject matter of the suit. Several questions of far-reaching importance arise in the matters of this nature. First of all, Court has to verify as to what exactly is the subject matter of the suit. In case, it is found to be anything, other than money, or an item of immovable property, an application under Rule 10 of Order 39 C.P.C., cannot be entertained. Secondly, there must be a clear admission, by a party to the suit, to the effect that he holds the money or movable property, as a trustee or that it belongs to another. The exercise in relation to the application under this provision is, in a way, very complex. In matters of this nature, one normally expects the Court, to bestow its attention, and to deal with the contentions of the parties, in detail. In a given case, the conclusion arrived at by the Court may not be correct or accurate. However, it must be evidence from the order passed by it, that necessary attention has been paid and an effort is made to appreciate the various implications. In the instant case, the affidavit filed by respondents 1 to 4 runs into several pages and the counter affidavit filed by respondent 5 and 6 is lengthier than that. Facts are very complicated and hardly there is any unanimity, on important aspects. It is but natural that the arguments are equally extensive and exhaustive. It is rather unfortunate that a matter of this nature was deal with, in a callous and indifferent manner by the trial Court. The order passed by the trial Court is contained in two sentences, if one may call them so. The entire is reproduced below, verbatim, together with marks of punctuation: “Heard on both sides the respondent intended to deposit the rent amount of Rs. 1,60,000/- for two years, accordingly, the respondents are directed to deposit. Under mentioned circumstances and reasons the petition is closed.” It appears that the trial Court wanted to observe austerity, in the matter of employing words or writing sentences. Not even scanty attention was paid, in structuring the sentences, let alone discussing the matter on merits. 1,60,000/- for two years, accordingly, the respondents are directed to deposit. Under mentioned circumstances and reasons the petition is closed.” It appears that the trial Court wanted to observe austerity, in the matter of employing words or writing sentences. Not even scanty attention was paid, in structuring the sentences, let alone discussing the matter on merits. One can easily imagine the number of marks that can be awarded to the two sentences employed in the order, if they are subjected to evaluation by a Teacher of English language, of a High School, and not a Lecturer, or Professor of that subject in a College. It cannot be over-emphasised that, before an incumbent rises to the level of Senior Civil Judge, he gains considerable experience as Junior Civil Judge, almost for a decade, and earlier to that appointment, he functions as an Advocate (through, in the recent past, this requirement was done away with). Study of LL.B degree precedes the general study of Graduation. Another aspect is that a candidate selected for the post of Junior Civil Judge is imparted rigorous training for a considerable time, and the training of a higher degree is stipulated for those, who are promoted as Senior Civil Judges. Therefore, one cannot be branded as over ambitious, if he expects ordinary and simple sentences in English from an incumbent, who reaches the stage of Senior Civil Judge. If anything is lacking in this regard, either it would be a case of absence of necessary aptitude, on the part of the individual, or something seriously defective, about the system of education, or the institution, in which he has received education or training, or the one, where he is functioning. If the learning of that nature and quality is kept by the individual, privately, for himself, no harm, as such would be caused to anyone. However, if the public functions, and more importantly, adjudicatory functions, involving the determination of rights of properties are manifested with that learning, the end result may not be difficult to imagine. Apart from resolving the dispute, such an exercise would push the parties, or some of them to further difficulties. It may be true that judgments rendered by Courts are not to be scrutinized on the touchstone of linguistic skills, or from the standpoint of ability of a man, to write excellent prose. Apart from resolving the dispute, such an exercise would push the parties, or some of them to further difficulties. It may be true that judgments rendered by Courts are not to be scrutinized on the touchstone of linguistic skills, or from the standpoint of ability of a man, to write excellent prose. The society, however, expects that a judgment or order would reflect the basic contours of the subject-matter; the brief contentions of the parties, and the determination thereof, supported by reasons, with reference to the relevant provisions of law. In certain cases, the conclusions have to be buttressed with the help of the precedents. As a matter of fact, this is the requirement under Order 20 of C.P.C., and a Judge would not be doing any favour by writing a detailed, or reasoned judgment, or order. Rule 5 of Order 20 of C.P.C., mandates that, in the suits, when issues are framed, the Courts shall state its finding or decision, with reasons thereof, upon each separate issue. Further, the law in this regard has evolved to such an extent, that the administrative and quasi judicial authorities, on whom no such obligation, to record reasons, akin to the one, under Order 20 C.P.C., is placed; are required to record reasons, in support of their conclusions, while passing orders. The requirement as regards the orders to be passed in applications, may not be of the same vigor, but a Court cannot relieve itself, from the obligation of assigning reasons, while disposing of the interlocutory applications, particularly when serious consequences flow from the exercise. There may be cases, where applications of routine nature are filed, and the consideration thereof is equally routine.; However, if an application is filed under an extraordinary provision, which is not generally invoked, the Court can avail it, as an opportunity, to examine the various facts of the provision, and its relevance and applicability to the facts before it. As a matter of fact, it would not be a test, for the ability of a Judge, to accept it, as a challenge. In many a case, a Judge would relish the adjudication, with reference to the provisions, which are not generally invoked. As a matter of fact, it would not be a test, for the ability of a Judge, to accept it, as a challenge. In many a case, a Judge would relish the adjudication, with reference to the provisions, which are not generally invoked. More often than not, the conclusions, that may be arrived at, are expressed by individuals, other than Judges, on a particular issue, arising in a case, may be more accurate and correct, than the one, expressed by a Court. What adds credibility and acceptability to the decision pronounced by the Court is, the process of reasoning it adopts, in arriving at the conclusion. The process of reasoning has multiplicity of purposes to serve: Firstly, it requires the judge to apply his mind to the case seriously. Secondary, it will make the parties to the litigation, to understand as to how the Court has arrived at a particular conclusion. Thirdly, the superior Court would be in a better position to appreciate, the manner in which the concerned Court had appreciated the issue, and to form an opinion, whether or not to interfere with the order or judgment, before it. One just cannot imagine the process of adjudication, which is bereft of the process of reasoning. It is a matter of common knowledge that in not even small fraction of cases in a Court, Rule 10 of Order 39 is invoked. It provides for extraordinary relief of requiring the deposit of amounts. Law requires that, even where an ex parte temporary injunction of usual nature is granted, it must be supported by reasons, disclosing prima facie case and balance of convenience. The need to furnish reasons, while granting relief under Rule 10 of Order 39 C.P.C., that too, as a measure of disposing of an application, finally, need not be overemphasized. The enquiry into an application filed under that provision resembles almost that of a suit. Valid and cogent reasons are required to be furnished, while directing the deposit of amount, before the adjudication itself takes place. The relief granted under the said provision surpasses in its content and purport, the one, granted in an application filed under Order 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C. When such are the consequences, the trial Court thought it fit to wind up the entire show, by employing two sentences, which are neither grammatically sound, nor perfect, in their purport. The relief granted under the said provision surpasses in its content and purport, the one, granted in an application filed under Order 38 Rule 5 of C.P.C. When such are the consequences, the trial Court thought it fit to wind up the entire show, by employing two sentences, which are neither grammatically sound, nor perfect, in their purport. Factors, such as pressure of work or lack of assistance from the counsel, hardly constitute any justification for the abdication of judicial functions. This Court is rather painted to make these observations, with the fond hope that, recurrence of instances of this nature is reduced to considerable extent, though it may not be possible to completely eradicate their occurrence. The C.M.A. is allowed, and the order under appeal is set aside. The learned Senior Civil Judge, Jagtial, is directed to pass fresh orders, duly taking into account the contents of the application; plea raised in the counter, filed by the appellant; gist of the arguments advanced by the counsel for the parties, the purport of the provision invoked in the application, and its relevance to the facts of the case. There shall be no order as to costs.