JUDGEMENT 1. Heard counsel for the petitioners. 2. In the opinion of this Court the court below was definitely required to give reasons in support of its order. Counsel for the petitioner in fact is correct that when certain reasons were advanced for amendment in the plaint as well as decree by referring to the existing pleadings on record, the approach of the court below to ignore all of them, either what was argued before him or what was stated in the application is definitely a jurisdictional error. 3. This Court from perusal of the impugned order in fact is satisfied that the same does not fulfill the test of a judicial order. Mere statement in the operative portion of the impugned order to the following effect Local Languange does not in any way indicate as to what had weighed upon the court in rejecting prayer for amendment of the plaint and the decree. The reasons being soul on any judicial order particularly those who are either appealable or couid be subjected to revision by the Superior Court, cannot be together ignored by the Subordinate Courts either while allowing or rejecting any prayer, even interlocutory in nature. The courts, in fact, are not required to give exhaustive reasons while disposing of any interlocutory order, but then it would always be in the interest of administration of justice that even a prayer of interlocutory nature is disposed of by indicating reasons in brief so as to avoid the criticism of abuse of discretionary powers by the Courts. 4 Judged in this background, when this Court had found that no reasons whatsoever are forth coming from the impugned order it has to hold that the same is unsustainable. 5. That being so, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted back to the court below to reconsider the issue in accordance with law. 6. This application is allowed to the extent indicated above.