Murlidher Rao, J.
1. This appeal is by the defendants-1 to 4 challenging the order of the V Addl. City Civil Judge, Metropolitan Area, Bangalore dated 23-6-1984, by which the Learned Judge has rejected the application I.A.4 filed by these defendants under Order 39 Rule 4 CPC. and has made theexparte injunction absolute. In coming to thisconclusion, the Trial Court has perused the documentary evidence produced by the plaintiff which primafacie shows that the plaintiff is in possession off the property. As against that, the defendants have not produced any receipts. Defendants i to 3 are thepurchasers from defendant No. 4. The materials show that the plaintiff has established the prima facie case that she is in possession of the properties and therefore she is entitled to injunction.
2. At this stage Sri Kulkarni, Advocate appearing for the appellants, submitted that it is the impression which is expressed in para 17 of the impugned order, that has influenced the conclusion of the Court below. Para 17 reads thus :
'17. The plaintiff, it should be borne in mind, is an underdog. She is a Harijan aged 15 years. The plaintiff has produced the issue of Kaunada Prabha and Sanjevani. Each paper contains a long item of news relating to the injustice that is being done to the plaintiff by well placed persons. I do not think that these responsible newspapers would publish such news, if there were no substraction of truth. It may not be out of place to mention that Mr. Justice Bhagavati of the Supreme Court while addressing Subordinate Judicial Officers in Hyderabad (Deccan Herald dated 17-6-1984) has called upon the Sub-ordinate JudicialOfficers to 'develop' social philosophy to render social justice to the weaker sections and the unfortunate.'
On going through the judgment, I am convinced that this is not the ground to grant injunction. The Learned Judge, by concluding the factual position viz., that the plaintiff is in Possession of the property and she isentitled for the injunction, has granted injunction. The above observations made by the Learned Judge in para.17 are really out of context. It is not a part of the reasoning. However it has to be pointed out that the Learned Judge should not have mentioned these things. Newspaper cuttings, speeches made in Conferences or Seminars are not meant to be used in judgments in support of judicial conclusions. A litigant expects his case to be decided on materials in the case and on relevant legal provisions, on the subject. Speeches and personal views of Judges should not influence this process. To give expressions to personal views and impression may vitiate the logic and judicial process of reasoning; they should be avoided. By making such observations Courts are exposing themselves to the risk of the criticism that the 'observations' and not the 'material facts' have influenced their conclusions. On the facts of this case, I am convinced that the observations quoted above, have not weighed with the Learned Judge.
3. ln the circumstances, there is no merit in the appeal. it is accordingly dismissed.