JUDGMENT K. Kishore and H.N. Agarwal, Members. - This is a review petition against the order dated April 27, 1974, passed by Shri V. Kumar, Chairman, Board of Revenue, since retired, refusing to admit the revision against the order dated March 18, 1974 passed by Shri P.C. Saxena, Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division, in revenue appeal No. 1 of 1973. 2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties, and have gone through the record. 3. The impugned order is a two-word order to the effect "Not admitted". This is a non-speaking order. It does not disclose whether the facts and grounds given in the revision petition were duly considered, nor does it disclose the reasons why the revision petition was not admitted. It is an established principle of law that judicial orders should be speaking in nature. This matter has already been discussed at length in the Full Bench decision of the Board of Revenue in Baharuddin v. Gaon Sabha, 1976 R.D. 53. The learned Full Bench has observed as follows on the question whether orders passed in revisions should be speaking or non-speaking:- "Coming lastly, to the point of judicial and quasi-judicial nature of the pronouncements under Rules 181 and 186 to 190, there is a mass of case law to show that all these proceedings are of a judicial nature and that accounts for the reasons why they are supposed to be governed by a 'speaking order'. The term 'speaking order' does not find any place either in Maxwell's 'Interpretation of Statutes' or in Jagdish Swarup's book 'Legislation and interpretation' or in 'principles of statutory interpretation' G.P. Singh or even in Graford's 'Statutory Construction-Interpretation of laws'. However, it finds place both in Venkataramaiya's 'Law Lexicon' and the 'Law Lexicon' of Mukherji and Singh. 'Speaking order', according to Venkataramaiya' has been explained by Lord Goddard in these words: 'when Lord Cairns, L.C. speaks of an un-speaking or unintelligible order he obviously means an order which gives no reasons, or does not explain in any way why the court made the order, but simply states that the court made such and such a conviction, order for removal or for quashing the poor rate, or other order of that sort, giving no reasons for doing so. It may not be unintelligible in one sense, but it is unintelligible in that it does not tell the superior court why the inferior court made that order'. Quoting another case, Venkataramaiya has expressed the opinion that the need for a speaking order arises 'when from that order an appeal or revision is provided for, the appellate or the revisional authority may know upon what grounds Judgment impugned was rendered. Brevity of the order does not mean that it is necessarily bad any more than prolixity makes for soundness'. From these observations we can deduce the main ingredients of a speaking order. In our opinion, these are:- (a) It should not be so cryptic that it does not carry that sense as to why it was passed, (b) It should be a well-reasoned and well argued order; and (c) It should be an order by whose perusal the parties as well as the superior courts should be able to appreciate that the officer passing the order has really applied his mind to the matter and they should be able to understand as to why it was passed and on what material is rests. In view of the fact that we have held that the proceedings under para 186 to 190 of the Revenue Court Manual are judicial in nature, the necessary corollary follows that the orders passed during the course of these proceedings should necessarily be 'speaking orders'." 4. We fully endorse the above vies. It may be added that where a revision or appeal is admitted, the grounds for admission need not be stated in the order of the court as these grounds have already been stated in the memorandum of revision of appeal, but where a revision or appeal is being summarily rejected, the grounds of rejection must be stated in the order of the court. Moreover, where the first appellate court has reversed the order of the trial court, the revisional court has to be extra cautious in rejecting the revision summarily without assigning any reasons. 5. Thus, in our view, the impugned order cannot be sustained and is hereby set aside. The review petition is allowed. The review petition shall now go before the Single Member for passing suitable orders regarding admission.