Short Note : 1. The plaintiff has filed a suit against the non-applicants, who are defendants in the suit. which is still pending. In that suit non-applicant No.2 had filed an application under Order II, rules 1 and 2 of the Code for an order granting leave to deliver interrogatories That application was opposed by the plaintiff. The application was allowed by the trial Court calling upon the plaintiff to file an affidavit in answer That order was subject of challenge in this Court in Civil Revision No 1147 of 1975 a' the instance of the plaintiff. This Court on 18-12-75 dismissed the revision summarily on the ground that the plaintiff can still object to the interrogatories in her affidavit under rule 6 and, therefore, it would not be proper to admit the revision at that stage. After that the plaintiff filed her affidavit under Order II, rule 6 of the Code. The trial Court thereafter passed a cryptic order of three lines saying as under: "After having heard the parties and considering the application I am of the opinion that the objection raised by the plaintiff is unfounded. 2. Then the order further proceeds as under: Therefore I A. No. 10 is allowed, the plaintiff should comply the order of this Court dated 15-11-75 and furnish the interrogatories accordingly." 3. Held: I am surprised to read the order of the trial Court. There is absolutely no discussion of the contentions of the parties for arriving at its conclusion. It is not expected of a judicial officer to' pass such cryptic orders, An order has, to be written in a manner so that the superior Court is in a position to assess application of mind by the subordinate Court. I do hope that in future the learned Judge of the trial Court would bear in mind the aforesaid observation while passing orders on interlocutory matters 4. I also final in the impugned order that the trial Court has directed the plaintiff to comply with its earlier order dated 15 11-75. That order was not a final order in the matte and it was on that count that this Court had declined to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction because the plaintiff had still an opportunity to say in the matter before the trial Court. That order was not a final order in the matte and it was on that count that this Court had declined to interfere in the revisional jurisdiction because the plaintiff had still an opportunity to say in the matter before the trial Court. Therefore, after the affidavit was filed by the plaintiff, as was envisaged in the earlier order of this Court, the trial Court was expected to pass a fresh order. It could not have directed the plaintiff to Comply with its earlier order dated 15-11-75. As I find the trial Court has acted with material irregularity in the present case and has committed jurisdictional error in passing the impugned order which is liable to be set aside. 5. For the reasons stated above, this revision is allowed subject to observations made above The order dated 6-5-76 passed by the trial Court is set aside and in consequence the said Court is directed to pass an order afresh in accordance with law. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. Revision allowed.