ORDER : 1. This Civil Revision Petition is filed by the Petitioner under Article 227 of the Constitution of India against orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Ramapachodavaram in I.A. No. 25 of 2016 in O.S. No. 32/2016 dated 26.10.2016 wherein and whereby Court below vacated temporary injunction granted in favour of the petitioner. 2. The revision petitioner filed O.S. No. 32 of 2016 before Agency Court seeking declaration that he is Owner and possessor of plaint scheduled property which is agricultural land consisting of two items and also sought for permanent injunction against respondents wherein he filed I.A. No. 25 of 2016 seeking temporary injunction. 3. The petitioners submits that at the first instance on 08.09.2016 Court below granted temporary injunction in his favour and posted the case for issuance of notice to the respondents on 16.10.2016 4. The Petitioner alleged that in the meanwhile Court below taken up the matter on 05.10.2016 itself, without notice to him and kept interim injunction orders in abeyance. Against which petitioner preferred Civil Revision Petition No. 6424 of 2016, which he has withdrawn in view of orders passed by the Court below dated 26.10.2016 in interim injunction petition filed by him. 5. It is contents to the petitioner that he is in possession and enjoyment of the petition scheduled property and Court below without following the procedure and in violation of principles of natural justice taken up the matter before the date of hearing kept the interim injunction orders abeyance and ultimately passed an order vacating the temporary injunction without assigning any reasons and not considered the documents filed by him. 6. Heard both sides. The learned counsel for revision petitioner Mr. A. Srinath, would submits that orders impugned are violative of principles of natural justice and there is no discussion with regard to the documents filed by petitioner due to that orders passed by Court below are liable to be set aside. 7. The learned counsel Mr. Babuji Thenneti, representing Mr. P.V. Krishnama Chary, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, would submits that Court below after considering report of Tahsildhar passed orders vacating the interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner. He would further submits that they have no objection for directing the Court below to dispose of the matter afresh after hearing both sides. 8. Babuji Thenneti, representing Mr. P.V. Krishnama Chary, learned counsel for respondent No. 2, would submits that Court below after considering report of Tahsildhar passed orders vacating the interim injunction granted in favour of the petitioner. He would further submits that they have no objection for directing the Court below to dispose of the matter afresh after hearing both sides. 8. Now, the issue that emerges for consideration by this Court is: whether the orders under challenge are sustainable, tenable and whether the same warrants any interference of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 9. The Court below i.e. the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Rampachodavaram, presided by revenue official discharging as a quasi-judicial Authority passed following order in I.A. No. 25 of 2016 in O.S. No. 32 of 2016 which reads as under: “The temporary injunction orders issued in I.A. No. 25 of 2016 in O.S. No. 32/2016, dated 08.09.2016 are kept in abeyance until further orders. The Tahsildar, Yetapaka (M) is requested to furnish the factual report on this case immediately. Posted for hearing on 13.10.2016.” 10. It is not in dispute that when suit is filed by the petitioner along with a petition seeking interim injunction which was ordered by the Court below on 08.09.2016. It is also not in dispute that when matter was posted to 16.10.2016 before that day it was taken up on 05.10.2016 and passed orders that “heard the suit and the orders in I.A. are kept in abeyance and to obtain factual report from the Tahsildar posted to 13.10.2016.” Then matter was posted to 09.11.2016 on which date both counsels were said to be present and filing written statement posted to 30.11.2016 and thereafter matter was adjourned to 27.12.2016, but in the meanwhile reasons best known to Court below passed order on 26.10.2016 which prima facie reflects that matter has been taken up before the date of the hearing without notice to both sides and disposed of by vacating temporary injunction orders on perusal of reports said to be sent by Tahsildar. 11. It is not known whether reports sent by the Tahsildar furnished to both sides and whether both sides have filed written statements as permitted by the Court below on 09.11.2016. 12. 11. It is not known whether reports sent by the Tahsildar furnished to both sides and whether both sides have filed written statements as permitted by the Court below on 09.11.2016. 12. In Kranthi Associates Private Limited vs. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496 on the point of necessity of giving reasons by a body or authority in support of its decision, the Hon’ble Apex Court summarized the legal position in Paragraph No. 47 which is reproduced under: (a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision-making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants' faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) I f a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. (k) I f a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decisionmakers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. [See David Shapiro in Defence of Judicial Candor (1987) 100 Harvard Law Review 731-37] (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. [See: Ruiz Torija vs. Spain, (1994) 19 EHRR 553 and Anya vs. University of Oxford, 2001 EWCA Civ 405 (CA)] wherein the Court referred to Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights which requires, “adequate and intelligent reasons must be given for judicial decisions.” (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process.” 13. The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in A.P. Mineral Developments vs. Trimex Minerals Pvt. Ltd. 1998 (1) ALD 533 also held that while disposing the interim injunction petition when both side have filed any documents specific Exhibit Number has to be given to avoid difficulty for Courts to discuss the documents and suggested to mark the documents which filed by the petitioners as “P” Series and documents filed by respondents as “R” Series which appears to be not followed by Court below while passing interim order. Paragraph No. 27 of above referred decision which is extracted as under: “Before closing the case, we must point out that there was considerable difficulty for us in knowing which documents were filed before the trial Court. This could have been avoided if exhibit numbers with “P” and “R” series are assigned to the documents filed and their brief description is indicated in index. This could have been avoided if exhibit numbers with “P” and “R” series are assigned to the documents filed and their brief description is indicated in index. This practice was being followed by the trial Courts until the decision of the learned single Judge of this Court in G. Sambrajyam vs. P. Maha Lakshmamma and Others, 1995 (1) ALD 358 , wherein his Lordship observed that neither the Civil Rules of Practice (framed by the High Court) nor the provisions of CPC contemplate marking of documents in an interlocutory application. May be, the rules are silent; but “it does not mean that marking of documents for the convenience of the parties and the Court, is prohibited or barred. In our view, there need not be express conferment of power in this behalf. The Court has inherent or incidental power to modulate the procedure not specifically laid down by the rules in an appropriate manner to promote general convenience and to facilitate easy reference. To avoid any confusion, the documents tentatively marked at the IA stage can be renumbered at the stage of trial of suit with “A” and “B” series, as is being done now, if they are proved or admitted in evidence. It is true that IAs cannot be enquired into a suits. But, it is far from saying that the documents referred to in the course of arguments or filed with the pleadings ought not to be indicated with appropriate serial numbers at the end of the order. Respectfully disagreeing with the view taken by the learned Judge, we hold that it is desirable to restore the old practice and procedure.” 14. On perusal orders passed by Court below which not reflects discussion of any prima facie evidence placed by both sides and it appears that impugned orders passed basing on report filed by the Tahsildar which not supplied to the both sides. The Court below also not discussed the pleadings and arguments submitted by both sides. Even it not reflected whether both sides have submitted arguments or not. When matter was posted to 27.12.2016 from 30.11.2016, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Ramapachodavaram was otherwise engaged it is not known how Court below passed the impugned order on 26.10.2016 itself. 15. The Court below also not discussed the pleadings and arguments submitted by both sides. Even it not reflected whether both sides have submitted arguments or not. When matter was posted to 27.12.2016 from 30.11.2016, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Ramapachodavaram was otherwise engaged it is not known how Court below passed the impugned order on 26.10.2016 itself. 15. The orders passed by Court below shows that which is not in accordance with law and against the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the decision referred to supra which is violative of principles of natural justice which is required while passing any judicial order even by quasi-judicial Authority is one of the fundamentals of judicial procedure or in quasi-judicial procedure. Failure to giving reasons amounts to denial of justice. Therefore, orders passed by Court below are not sustainable either in law or on facts which needs interference of this Court while invoking the Supervisory Jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 16. In the result, Civil Revision Petition is allowed. The orders passed by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mobile Court, Ramapachodavaram in I.A. No. 25 of 2016 in O.S. No. 32 of 2016, dated 26.10.2016 hereby quashed and set aside. The matter is remitted to Court below with a direction to restore I.A. No. 25 of 2016 in O.S. No. 32 of 2016 and dispose of the case afresh after giving opportunity to both sides to file documents and mark the same as per directions of this Court in A.P. Mineral Developments Case referred supra and dispose of the case by giving reasons. The Court below shall dispose of I.A. No. 25 of 2016 within six (06) months from the date of receipt orders of this Court in the present Civil Revision Petition. No order as to costs. 17. Consequently, miscellaneous petitions is any, stands closed, the interim stay if any, granted shall merges with the orders of this Court.