JUDGMENT : U.C. Dhyani, J. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners seek the following relief, among others:- “Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of certiorari quashing of the impugned order dated 05.07.2016 (Annexure No. 1) passed by learned District Judge, Haridwar in MCA No. 36 of 2016, Devendra Dutt Barthwal and others vs. Dera Baba Dargah Singh and others.” 2. A suit for permanent prohibitory injunction was filed by the plaintiffs (petitioners herein), against the defendants (respondents no. 1 & 2 herein). Seven other persons (respondents no. 3 to 9) filed impleadment application before the trial court. They were also the caveators before the selfsame court. The trial court, vide order dated 31st May, 2016 passed an order directing the parties to maintain status quo over the suit property. The same was challenged in Misc. Civil Appeal by the defendant no. 1 and seven persons, who wanted to get themselves impleaded in the suit before the trial court and who were also the caveators. The Lower Appellate Court stayed the order passed by the trial court in the following manner: “Heard. Misc. Civil Appeal is admitted. Case is registered. Issue notices to the respondents. Steps be taken by both ways. List on 29.07.2016. * * * * * * * * * An application paper no. 5C2 has been filed on behalf the appellant to stay the operation of the order passed by the court below. It is the submission of the applicant that if the order impugned is not stayed, irreparable loss will be caused to them. Heard. The effect and operation of the impugned order dated 31.05.2016 is stayed till the next date of listing. The application paper no. 9C2 for calling commission report along with photographs have been filed on behalf of the appellants. Application 9C2 is allowed. Court amin is directed to submit his report. Steps be taken within seven days. List on 29.07.2016.” 3. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that no reason has been assigned by the court below while staying the order of the Trial Court. 4. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the State of Uttaranchal & anr. vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish & ors. reported in 2011 (2) U.D. 143, as follows:- “15. It is the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that no reason has been assigned by the court below while staying the order of the Trial Court. 4. It has been held by Hon’ble Apex Court in the State of Uttaranchal & anr. vs. Sunil Kumar Vaish & ors. reported in 2011 (2) U.D. 143, as follows:- “15. Judicial determination has to be seen as an outcome of a reasoned process of adjudication initiated and documented by a party based, on mainly events which happened in the past. Courts’ clear reasoning and analysis are basic requirements in a judicial determination when parties demand it so that they can administer justice justly and correctly, in relation to the findings on law and facts. Judicial decision must be perceived by the parties and by the society at large, as being the result of a correct and proper application of legal rules, proper evaluation of the evidence adduced and application of legal procedure. The parties should be convinced that their case has been properly considered and decided. Judicial decisions must in principle be reasoned and the quality of a judicial decision depends principally on the quality of its reasoning. Proper reasoning is an imperative necessity which should not be sacrificed for expediency. The statement of reasons not only makes the decision easier for the parties to understand and many a times such decisions would be accepted with respect. The requirement of providing reasons obliges the judge to respond to the parties’ submissions and to specify the points that justify the decision and make it lawful and it enables the society to understand the functioning of the judicial system and it also enhances the faith and confidence of the people in the judicial system. 16. We are sorry to say that the judgment in question does not satisfy the above standards set for proper determination of disputes. Needless to say these types of orders weaken our judicial system. Serious attention is called for to enhance the quality of adjudication of our courts. Public trust and confidence in courts stem, quite often, from the direct experience of citizens from the judicial adjudication of their disputes.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted, among other things, that firstly the strangers were permitted to argue the misc. appeal without granting them Leave, and secondly, the order impugned before this Court is a bald order. Public trust and confidence in courts stem, quite often, from the direct experience of citizens from the judicial adjudication of their disputes.” 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted, among other things, that firstly the strangers were permitted to argue the misc. appeal without granting them Leave, and secondly, the order impugned before this Court is a bald order. The same has been passed in a routine manner. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents no. 1 & 2 fairly conceded to the aforesaid proposition of law that the impugned order ought to have been passed only after assigning reasons, which has not been done in the instant case. Learned counsel for the respondents no.1 & 2 also fairly conceded that the appeal of the strangers can be entertained only after granting them leave to file the appeal. 7. This Court has, therefore, no option, but to set aside the order impugned. Order impugned is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted back to learned District Judge, Haridwar to decide Misc. Civil Appeal (stay application and application for leave to appeal) at an early date, in the manner known to law. Parties shall appear before the District Judge on 22.07.2016, whereafter the District Judge may proceed to decide the appeal in accordance with law. 8. Let copies of this order be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties today itself on payment of usual charges.