Judgment : This Civil Revision Petition is filed against order, dated 11.07.2011, in I.A.No.262 of 2011 in O.S.No.32 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam. Even though notice is served on both the respondents and proof of service is filed vide U.S.R.No.1701 of 2011, no one appeared for the respondents. I have heard Sri Chetluru Srinivas, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. The petitioner is the plaintiff in O.S.No.32 of 2009 filed for specific performance of agreement of sale. The respondents who are defendants in the suit filed I.A.No.262 of 2011 for framing additional issues. The petitioner filed a counter-affidavit resisting the said application. However, by the order impugned in this Civil Revision Petition, the lower Court has allowed the application filed by the respondents. A perusal of the order under revision shows that no reasons whatsoever have been assigned by the lower Court for allowing the application for framing the additional issues. Such an order is not expected from the Courts at any level. It is the duty and obligation of the Courts of law to assign reasons in support of conclusions arrived at by them. Absence of reasons renders judicial orders per se illegal and unsustainable. It has been laid down in a long line of cases that recording reasons is a facet of principles of natural justice. Giving of reasons serves three purposes viz., the litigant will know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer; it will help the Court disposing of the case to arrive at proper conclusion; and the superior Court to examine the correctness of the order. In Assistant Commissioner, Commercial Tax Department Vs. Shukla and brothers 2010(4) SCC 785 , the Supreme Court has reiterated its earlier Judgments in S.N. Mukherjee Vs. Union of India (1990) 4 SCC 594 , State of Uttaranchal Vs. Sunil Kumar Singh Negi (2008) 11 SCC 205 and various other Judgments, and held at paras 13 and 14, as under : “At the cost of repetition, we may notice, that this Court has consistently taken the view that recording of reasons is an essential feature of dispensation of justice. A litigant who approaches the Court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. A litigant who approaches the Court with any grievance in accordance with law is entitled to know the reasons for grant or rejection of his prayer. Reasons are the soul of orders. Non-recording of reasons could lead to dual infirmities; firstly, it may cause prejudice to the affected party and secondly, more particularly, hamper the proper administration of justice. These principles are not only applicable to administrative or executive actions, but they apply with equal force and, in fact, with a greater degree of precision to judicial pronouncements. A judgment without reasons causes prejudice to the person against whom it is pronounced, as that litigant is unable to know the ground which weighed with the court in rejecting his claim and also causes impediments in his taking adequate and appropriate grounds before the higher court in the event of challenge to that judgment. Now, we may refer to certain judgments of this Court as well as of the High Courts which have taken this view. The principle of natural justice has twin ingredients; firstly, the person who is likely to be adversely affected by the action of the authorities should be given notice to show cause thereof and granted an opportunity of hearing and secondly, the orders so passed by the authorities should give reason for arriving at any conclusion showing proper application of mind. Violation of either of them could in the given facts and circumstances of the case, vitiate the order itself. Such rule being applicable to the administrative authorities certainly requires that the judgment of the Court should meet with this requirement with higher degree of satisfaction…..” The approach of the lower Court not only does not satisfy this basic jurisprudential principle but also the same does not conform to judicial discipline. The order under revision is, therefore, liable to be set aside on this short ground alone. For the above-mentioned reasons, the Civil Revision Petition is allowed and the order, dated 11.07.2011, in I.A.No.262 of 2011 in O.S.No.32 of 2009 on the file of the learned Judge, Family Court-cum-Additional District Judge, Khammam, is set aside. The lower Court is directed to pass a fresh order in the said I.A. by assigning detailed reasons. As a sequel to disposal of the Civil Revision Petition, interim order dated 23.09.2011, is vacated and C.R.P.M.P.No.5601 of 2011 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous.