Judgment : Pursuant to the order dated 5th August 2011 service was effected upon the learned Advocate appearing for the opposite parties. Affidavit-of-service filed today be kept with the record. In spite of service no one appears on behalf of the opposite party no. 1. Insolvency Proceeding, being Insolvency Case No. 4 of 1999, instituted by the opposite party no. 1 against the opposite party no. 2, being the employee of the petitioner, was allowed and an Official Receiver was appointed in the said proceeding. By an order dated 16th January 1999 the Insolvency Court directed the official receiver to realise a sum of Rs.55,800/- from the retiral benefits of the opposite party no. 1. According to the opposite party no. 1, the employee was superannuated on or from 31st December 1998 and on the same very day all the retiral benefits was disbursed to the said employee. The petitioner brought such fact to the notice of the Insolvency Court, by filing an application dated 20th March 2001 but the Insolvency Court, by its impugned order, rejected the same without recording any reason. It is settled law that judicial authorities are C.O. 533 of 2006 bound to record reason, which is nothing but heart and soul of the order. and a litigant has a right to know the reason for which the Court either rejects or allows his prayer. Thus, I find that the impugned order fails on the anvil of the doctrine of speaking order. The order impugned is, therefore, set aside. The revisional application is allowed. The Court below is directed to reconsider the said application dated 20th March 2001 afresh and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order, in accordance with law. For abundant precaution it is made clear that this Court had no occasion to consider the merit of this revisional application and the Court below shall be free to take decision, without being influenced by any observation, if any made herein, in accordance with law, at the time of disposal of the application. There will be no order as to costs.