Judgment :- 1. This revision arises out of the order passed by the learned District Munsif in I.A. No. 481 of 1993 filed for amending the plaint. 2. The petitioner is the respondent in the said interlocutory application. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the learned District Munsif has passed an one line order without giving the details of the application and discussing with the rival contentions of both parties and therefore, it must be set aside. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent, on the other hand argued that the suit is for permanent injunction restraining the defendant from interfering with the plaintiffs possession and enjoyment and for other reliefs and that a commissioner has been appointed by the lower Court and the report of the commissioner is to the effect that the defendant is in possession of the property and therefore the plaintiff/respondent was obliged to file an application for amending the prayer in the suit for declaration and mandatory injunction and the amendment has not brought out a new case for the plaintiff and it is only during the pendency of the suit, the plaintiff has come to know of the trespass committed by the defendant and therefore, there is no fresh cause of action and as such, the order passed by the trial Court is proper. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would argue that the grievance of the petitioner is only in the manner in which the application has been ordered by the trial Court, in that the trial Court has passed an one line order to the effect that without a prayer for declaration, mandatory injunction cannot be granted and it is a matter to be decided at the final stage of the disposal of the suit and allowed the petition and in view of the fact that the order does not state the case of the rival contentions and why the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the application should be allowed, the order is liable to be set aside. It has been repeatedly held by out Court as well as the Supreme Court that no judicial order can be justified, unless it is a speaking order. It has been repeatedly held by out Court as well as the Supreme Court that no judicial order can be justified, unless it is a speaking order. In the impugned order, it is not stated by the learned District Munsif what was the dispute between the petitioner and the respondent and why the petitioner/plaintiff wanted the plaint to be amended as per the application filed before him and why the defendant is objecting to the same and why he has come to the conclusion that the application should be allowed. In other words, the order passed by the learned District Munsif is an order which can be described as a non-speaking order and the passing of which has been discouraged by various decisions of our Court. The learned counsel appearing for the respondent would argue that since it has come to the knowledge of the plaintiff that the defendant/petitioner had trespassed into the property, only after the filing of the written statement and a commissioner was appointed by the lower Court, it cannot be stated that there is any change of cause of action and hence amendment can be ordered at any stage of the suit provided the suit is pending and there is nothing improper or illegal in the order passed by the trial Court. It is no doubt true that the amendment has been sought for by the plaintiff before the commencement of trial on the basis of the report of the commissioner and the plaintiff is entitled to file the application for amendment and get a favorable order, provided the petitioner satisfies the court which makes the enquiry that no new cause of action arises by virtue of the amendment and no prejudice is to be caused to the respondent by allowing the amendment. The learned counsel does not dispute the legal submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent, but he challenges the order as not a proper order, only on the ground that it is a non-speaking order. Under Order 6, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff is no doubt entitled to file the application for amendment, but it cannot be lost sight of by that Court which passed an order on a contested matter that it should pass a speaking order. Under Order 6, Rule 17 of Civil Procedure Code, the plaintiff is no doubt entitled to file the application for amendment, but it cannot be lost sight of by that Court which passed an order on a contested matter that it should pass a speaking order. In the present case, the respondent has filed a counter disputing the petitioners claim; but a reading of the impugned order would not disclose what is the case of the plaintiff, why he wants an amendment, why the same is objected to by the defendant and how the trial Court has come to the conclusion that the application should be allowed. It is only the manner in which the order has been passed by the trial Court, the impugned order has to be set aside and the matter has to be remitted to the trial Court. In that view, the revision is allowed and the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the trial Court for rehearing and disposal in accordance with law. 4. In the result, the revision is allowed. The impugned order is set aside. The matter is remitted to the trial Court for re-hearing and disposal, in accordance with law. There will be no order as to costs.