Judgment :- Animadverting upon the order dated 9. 2007 passed in I.A.No.854 of 2007 in P.O.P.No.19 of 2005 by the Principal District Court, Erode, these revision petitions are filed. 2. A summation and summarisation of the facts, which are absolutely necessary and germane for the disposal of these civil revision petitions would run thus. The first respondent/plaintiff filed P.O.P.No.19 of 2005, seeking permission to file the suit in forma pauperis with the following prayers: (i) to declare that the plaintiff is the absolute owner of the suit property; (ii) to restrain the defendants, their men and agents from in any manner interfering with the plaintiffs peaceful possession and enjoyment of the suit properties by means of a permanent injunction; (iii) to direct the defendants to pay the cost of the suit. The revision petitioners/defendants entered appearance and after considerable lapse of time, the first respondent/plaintiff has chosen to file I.A.No.854 of 2007 seeking the following amendment: "The respondents have filed counter in the above POP 19/2005 wherein they have stated that the suit itself is not maintainable without a prayer for cancellation of the sale deed. Therefore I have come forward with this application to amend the plaint for a prayer to set aside the sale deed dated 27. 2004 and duly registered before the sub-Registrar, Kavindapady as doc.No. Unless the plaint is suitably amended I will be put to great loss and hardship." The revision petitioners/defendants objected to such amendment. However, the lower Court, in a cryptic order simply allowed the amendment to be carried out in the plaint. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with said order, the defendants filed these revisions on various grounds. 3. The learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioners/defendants in both the revisions, placing reliance on the grounds of revisions, would develop his argument to the effect that no carte blache was given to the lower Court to pass such a cryptic order without citing any reason. The matter was not even numbered as O.S. and it is prematured to get the substantial prayers amended in the P.O.P. itself. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the order of the lower Court. 4. The matter was not even numbered as O.S. and it is prematured to get the substantial prayers amended in the P.O.P. itself. Accordingly, the learned counsel prayed for setting aside the order of the lower Court. 4. The learned counsel for the first respondent/plaintiff would submit that even before the first respondent/plaintiff getting the POP numbered as O.S., she thought it fit to effect amendments in the prayer, so that at the time of POP itself correct valuation would be arrived at and the quantum of fee payable also could be assessed and whereupon she would be able to pray before the Court that she was not having adequate fund to pay such Court fee. 5. At the out set itself, I would like to agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the revision petitioners/defendants that the trial Court throwing to winds all norms in passing an order, simply in a cryptic manner allowed the application. It is all the more important in a matter where counter has been filed by the respondent, the Courts are enjoined to assign reasons as to why the objections in the counter are not upheld and countenanced, in the event of allowing the application. 6. In this case, the Court virtually, without considering the objections filed by the revision petitioners/defendants in the I.A., simply allowed the application. However, because of the fault of the Court, the proceedings also should not get prolonged. Now the matter is only at the POP stage before the lower Court. I could see no embargo for the plaintiff/first respondent to seek amendment of the prayers and in such a case, the prayer for incorporating one additional relief to get set aside the sale deed cannot be termed as one not sustainable in all. As such, in this view of the matter I could see no merit in these revision petitions. However, direction is given to the learned lower Court Judge concerned to pass appropriate orders hereafter by assigning reasons. 7. In the result, the civil revision petitions are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are dismissed.