JUDGMENT D.N. Jha, J. - I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for opposite parties Nos. 2 & 3. Opposite party No. 1 is represented through the chief standing counsel. 2. The grievance set oat in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution precisely is that the application moved by the petitioner, contained in Annexure 10 purpoting to be under Order IX, Rule 2 C.P.C. and the application contained in Annexure 12 purporting to be under section 151 C.P.C were rejected without providing full opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The order passed by the Prescribed Authority is undoubtedly a cryptie order and it only indicates that the applicant was heard and since no sufficient ground was made out the applications were rejected. It may be mentioned that whenever an application is moved in a court of law it has to be disposed of by a speaking order so that the court exercising supervisory jurisdiction may be able to appreciate the reasons assigned for rejection. Judical orders are not to be passed in an executive fashion. The impugned orders being non-speaking can not be sustained in the eyes of law. The prayer in the first application moved under order 9, Rule 2 C.P.C was to the effect that the petitioner wanted to cross examine the so-called Smt. Mushtari Khatoon who had filed an affidavit on behalf of the applicants. In the order passed by the Prescribed Authority one fails to make out the reason for rejecting the said prayer. Likewise in the application moved under section 151 C.P.C. similar mistake has been repeated. 3. In view of the aforesaid observation the petition succeeds and is allowed. The orders contained in Annexures 12 and 13, both dated 2-5-1985 are quashed. Let certiorari issue accordingly. I direct the Prescribed Authority (Rent Control) Lucknow, (Additional Judge, Small Causes) to restore these applications to their original number and dispose them of in accordance with law with a reasoned judgment as expeditiously as possible say, before the closure of courts for summer vacation. The parties will appear before the court concerned on 1-5-1986. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.