JUDGMENT H.N. Agarwal, Member. - This is a reference made by Sri B.N. Singh, Additional Commissioner, Faizabad Division, Faizabad, recommending that the revision against the order dated August, 7, 1972 passed by the Judicial Officer (Revenue), district Faizabad in case No. 2/43 under Section 180 of U.P. Tenancy Act, may be dismissed. 2. I have heard the learned counsels for the parties and have gone through the record. 3. The opposite parties, Chaudhary Maslahuddin and Chaudhary Mohiuddin had filed a suit under Section 180, U.P. Tenancy Act before the Sub-Divisional Officer, Tanda on June 12, 1963. They also filed another suit under Section 64, U.P. Urban Areas Z.A. and L.R. Act, Sections 229-B/209, U.P.Z.A. and L.R. Act on March 25, 1966. Both these suits had been decided by the trial court but were subsequently remanded. On December 4, 1971 the plaintiffs moved an application for amendment in the plaint. The trial court passed the following order on this application on August 7, 1972: "Amendment is allowed on Rs. 10/- as cost." The learned counsel for the revisionist has assailed this order on the ground that copy of the amendment application was neither furnished to the revisionist nor any objection was invited, that the amendment application was allowed without notice to and knowledge of the revisionist, that the case had been pending for a very long time and the amendment application was move merely to harass the revisionist for ulterior motives and that the order passed by the trial court is no order in the eye of law. 4. After a perusal of the record I am satisfied that all these contentions must be upheld. An order passed by a Court in a judicial proceedings must be a speaking order and should be as far as possible passed after hearing both the parties. The order of the trial court, which has been reproduced above is not a speaking order and does not show that the trial court has applied its mind to the matter at all. No reasons for allowing the amendment have been recorded by the trial court. Further as neither a copy of the amendment application was given to the revisionist nor the revisionist has allowed any opportunity of filing an objection or of being heard, the order in question violates the principles of natural justice. No reasons for allowing the amendment have been recorded by the trial court. Further as neither a copy of the amendment application was given to the revisionist nor the revisionist has allowed any opportunity of filing an objection or of being heard, the order in question violates the principles of natural justice. Then again, the trial court has not considered the question why this application for amendment of the plaint should be moved should be allowed after so many years. The trial court has not considered at all whether the application for amendment, is bona fide, whether it changes the nature of the suit, and whether is has been moved merely with the purpose of harassing the other party. Thus, the trial court has clearly acted illegally in the exercise of its jurisdiction in allowing the amendment in an arbitrary manner without either giving notice to the revisionist or recording reasons. 5. The result is that disagreeing with the recommendation made by the learned Additional Commissioner, I hereby allow the revision and set aside the order of the trial court. The trial court shall now proceed to consider the amendment application in accordance with law after giving due notice to both the parties and shall record a proper speaking order allowing or disallowing the amendment as may be proper.