Prakash Tatia, J.—Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The trial Court by one line order held that no new issue is needed despite the fact that the petitioner submitted written statement and according to the petitioner, written statement raises new issues which are not already framed. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents submitted that the trial Court examined the pleadings and thereafter held that no new issue is needed. It is submitted that if the petitioner thought that some new issue arises, then he could have moved appropriate application. 4. It appears from the impugned order that the trial Court, after filing of the written statement, in one line ordered that no new issue is required to be framed. The order is non-speaking order and, therefore, it cannot be said that the trial Court has held that no new issue is needed, in the light of the arguments submitted by counsel for the petitioner. 5. Be it as it may be, the Court may frame the issue at any stage and, therefore, it will be appropriate to direct the trial Court to re-examine the matter and hear the parties and thereafter pass a reasoned order that there is no need to frame new issue despite new pleadings which have come on record. 6. With the aforesaid observations, this writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dt. 20.03.2006 is set aside. * * * * *