Hon'ble Saeed-Uz-Zaman Siddiqi,J.:— Heard learned counsel for the revisionist and perused the record. This revision has been preferred against the order dated 7.9.2012, passed by the learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Lakhimpur, Kheri in Regular Suit No.1040 of 2012, by which he has simply mentioned that under the facts and circumstances of the case ex-parte injunction order does not appear to be justifiable to be issued without hearing of the defendant. Aggrieved by the said order, plaintiff has come up to this court by filing the present revision. Obviously in any suit or proceeding a Civil Court can issue ex-parte injunction, if it is proved by affidavit or otherwise that any property, in dispute, in a suit, is in danger of being wasted or damaged. Mere recital by a Court of law that under the facts and circumstances ex-parte injunction order cannot be issued without hearing of the defendant, is a blatant violation of the rules of natural justice. Not only reasons, but cogent reasons, must have been recorded by the Court while refusing to grant extraordinary relief as provided in Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The recording of reasons is an assurance that the Court concerned has consciously applied its mind to the facts on record and the law applicable thereto. It also aids the appellate or revisional authority or the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court or the appellate jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court to see whether the authority concerned acted fairly and justifiably to mete out justice to the aggrieved person. Reasons are harbinger between the mind of the Trial Court and the order itself. From this perspective omission to record reasons vitiates the impugned order or is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. K.S. Gandhi and others (1991) 2 SCC 716 , has held as under:- "Thus it is settled law that the reasons are harbinger between the mind of the maker of the order to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at. It also exclude the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious decision or conclusion. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion/decision reached. It also exclude the chances to reach arbitrary, whimsical or capricious decision or conclusion. The reasons assure an inbuilt support to the conclusion/decision reached. The order when it effects the right of a citizen or a person, irrespective of the fact, whether it is quasi-judicial or administrative fair play requires recording of germane and relevant precise reasons. The recording of reasons is also an assurance that the authority concerned consciously applied its mind to the facts on record. It also aids the appellate or revisional authority or the supervisory jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 or the Appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 to see whether the authority concerned acted fairly and justly to meet out justice to the aggrieved person." It is the experience of this Court that there is a growing tendency among the subordinate courts to suspect each and every litigant howsoever aggrieved he may be. The settled legal position, right from the inception of existing judicial administrative system, running from more than a century is that the plaintiff is the dominus-litus and if he proves, through affidavit, that urgent or emergent circumstances exists as mentioned in Order 39 of the Code of Civil Procedure, ex-parte injunction cannot be denied merely on the suspicion that the plaintiff may misuse it. The "suspicion and apprehension" is an opinion and, opinion can never form the basis of a judicial order. This tendency is compelling the aggrieved persons to take recourse of non-judicial methods and approaching criminal element of the society to get the property restored. Any denial on the part of the Court of law means nothing less than encouraging the aggrieved person to approach influential persons or Mafias or to adopt extra-judicial means. With great pain I may mention here that such tendency of the subordinate courts amounts to denial of duty and it clearly means that subordinate courts are surrendering their power and authority to non-constitutional, unrecognized and in-genuine, persons which is suicidal for the constitutional mechanism, eroding the majesty of courts of law and amounts to de facto recognition of "muscle power" rule of jungle etc. etc. To illustrate and impress upon this point it may be mentioned here that a small family consisting of only husband and wife is the basic element to form the society. etc. To illustrate and impress upon this point it may be mentioned here that a small family consisting of only husband and wife is the basic element to form the society. When two persons of opposite sex are married with each other, coming from different traditions, environments etc., the matrimony exists on trust. If there is any suspicion between any of the two, the family would break down. This illustration goes on to show that the trust is prima-facie belief of honest representation is basis of the society and the nation, unless it is proved otherwise. Without any proof of falsity in the averment of plaint or in the affidavit filed by plaintiff, the discretion has to be exercised in his favour, with certain judicial rider and conditions as provided in the Code of Civil Procedure. This is the sad experience of this Court that the Subordinate Judge is very often reluctant to give immediate relief to an aggrieved person, which is eroding the majesty of justice, on one hand, and on the other hand, it is degenerating the society at large. Public has resorted to settle scores by applying their muscle power or by engaging unscrupulous elements of the society who have muscle power. This perverse and passive approach of the Courts is causing injury to the Constitutional spirit. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Civil Appeal No.5703 of 2012 (Dr. Mehmood Nayyar Azam v. State of Chattisgarh and ors.) has held:- "There are some megalomaniac officers who conceive the perverse notion that they are the 'Law' forgetting that law is the science of what is good and just and, in very nature of things, protective of a civilized society. Reverence for the nobility of a human being has to be the corner stone of a body polity that believes in orderly progress." The Subordinate Courts must develop a realistic approach in this direction so as to prevent the society to be converted into a criminal society. The Subordinate Courts must keep in mind that District Courts are easier of access for litigants and the High Court, specially in the large State, like Uttar Pradesh, are 'untouchable' and 'un-approachable' for agrestic population and even urban middle class. The Subordinate Courts must keep in mind that District Courts are easier of access for litigants and the High Court, specially in the large State, like Uttar Pradesh, are 'untouchable' and 'un-approachable' for agrestic population and even urban middle class. There is no ground for this Court to distrust a Subordinate Judge but there is a growing tendency to avoid, scape or skip, in promptly attracting towards remedial measures, keeping in mind that the Courts are meant to deliver prompt justice. A Subordinate Judge has to imagine as to what would happen to a patient if the Doctor says that emergency treatment cannot be advised to the patient, unless directions are sought from the higher authorities. The Court is answerable to the society at large. It is the judicial system alone and alone which can keep the Constitutional spirit intact. Recently in Gurdev Kaur & others V. Kaki & others, AIR 2006 SC 1975 , the Hon'ble Apex Court has given a note of caution to such orders which are stigmatic on the justice delivery system in the mind of the public at large and has held; "Judges must administer law according to the provisions of law. It is the bounden duty of judges to discern legislative intention in the process of adjudication. Justice administered according to individual's whim, desire, inclination and notion of justice would lead to confusion, disorder and chaos." It is reminded to the Subordinate Courts that the people of India have solemnly resolved to constitute India into a "Republic" in order to secure to all its citizens 'justice'. This is mentioned in the preamble of the Constitution of India, in which the word, 'justice' figures at the top because of the obvious reason that a nation is formed for maintenance of justice, law and order. What will happen to this pious nation, if the Subordinate Courts determines not to deliver quick justice, as required?. The word 'quick' is being used to redress genuine grievances, without delay, it does not mean ruthlessly, or in violation of any law for the time being in force, without any exhibition of 'fear', 'risk', 'pessimism' or lethargy by applying short-term immunity acquired artificially. The Courts in India are expected to follow absolute submission to the ruling power i.e. the Constitution of India. Every Judge is a subject of obedience to the 'divine rights of kings'. The Courts in India are expected to follow absolute submission to the ruling power i.e. the Constitution of India. Every Judge is a subject of obedience to the 'divine rights of kings'. The application of passive resistance is a deliberate refusal to what law or regulation orders. It is true that frivolous litigation has increased and multiplied in recent year, but it should be taken by the Courts to be a pleasant challenge by depicting divine powers lying in Courts of law and, by applying 'judicial tact' and, not by refusing to grant ex-parte injunction/ad-interim injunction, in all the cases. The rights of really aggrieved litigant must be protected. Here lies the dignity of the Court, which justifies the very incarnation of the the machinery of justice. A Judge is expected to initiate the process of healing; his verdict deserves to be a visible embodiment. Due to this reason, it is being said that judicial sense is of divine nature and judicial sense of a Judge should be so high and esteemed that when both the parties are apparently correct, the Judge could say who is more correct. The Judges are bound to maintain political order and law. Thomas Hobbes famously said that in a "state of nature" human life would be "solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short". In the absence of political order and law, everyone would have unlimited nature freedoms, including the "right to all things" and thus the freedom to plunder, rape, and murder; there would be an endless "war of all against all" (bellum omnium contra omnes). Law and political order are not natural, but are instead human creations. People have rights as human beings. Everyone has to accept that natural justice is a pledge of reciprocal benefit, to prevent one man from harming or being harmed by another. Those animals which are incapable of making binding agreements with one another not to inflict nor suffer harm are without either justice or injustice; and likewise for those peoples who either could not or would not form binding agreements not to inflict nor suffer harm. There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm. Any breach of these rights must be taken care by the Courts, without delay. There never was such a thing as absolute justice, but only agreements made in mutual dealings among men in whatever places at various times providing against the infliction or suffering of harm. Any breach of these rights must be taken care by the Courts, without delay. The Courts, thus act as impartial, objective agent and living god. What Rousseau has observed that law is a civilizing force. Courts are bound to impose that force in a pragmatic and expedient manner which must reflect the realistic approach and such type of Judges are called activist, which does not mean proactive or over-active but means and includes a conscious citizen who is not dormant, sleeping or hibernating, lethargic or in a sleeping posture. Each of the case has to be dealt with, by the facts, the plaintiff has alleged and, if no mischief appears to a Trial Judge, there should not be any hesitation or awe or fear to redress grievance by granting ex-parte injunction in an impressive manner, which may not astonish, surprise, wonder, amaze or, shock a law abiding citizen, a downtrodden and aggrieved litigant. Underneath there is a current in the society that the Subordinate Courts are not granting ex-parte injunction, in civil matters as a matter of determination. This impression is suicidal to the justice delivery system. The Courts are expected to ensure that this impression is vanished before it bite the Constitutional machinery. The interim relief should be denied or delayed only if mischief is apparent or the Trial Court is convinced that the matter is not of urgent nature or there is no emergent situation. What has been mentioned above is the outcome, outburst and exposition due to experience of this Court that a bulk of writ petitions are filed in this Court everyday (without any exception), not against any orders passed by the Trial Courts but due to inaction of the Subordinate Courts to deal effectively with the litigation pending before them, which is eroding majesty and dignity of the Subordinate Courts in the estimation of the public at large. With these observation, revision is allowed. Order dated 7.9.2012, passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Lakhimpur, Kheri in Regular Suit No.1040 of 2012 is set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the ad-interim injunction application within thirty days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. With these observation, revision is allowed. Order dated 7.9.2012, passed by learned Civil Judge (J.D.), Lakhimpur, Kheri in Regular Suit No.1040 of 2012 is set aside and the learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the ad-interim injunction application within thirty days from the date of production of a certified copy of this order. _____________