ORDER 1. With the consent of parties, matter is finally heard. 2. By filing this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution, the petitioner-defendant has assailed the order dated 27.9.2013, whereby his application preferred under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, Annexure P-4, was rejected by the Court below. 3. Shri Chandil, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that in absence of reasons for rejection, the order is vulnerable. 4. Shri Bansal, learned counsel for the respondent, supported the order on the basis of stand taken before the Court below. 5. I have heard the parties on this aspect. 6. The petitioner preferred the amendment application on 29.4.2013. The plaintiff-respondent filed reply and opposed the amendment application. 7. The Court below recorded its conclusion by stating that the amendment proposed is not necessary for the adjudication of the matter. It is further held that the amendment so proposed may be a reason for taking steps before the appropriate forum. 8. In the considered opinion of this Court, the operative portion of the order impugned amounts to “conclusion” arrived at by the Court below. However, there is no reason for reaching to the said conclusion. The Court below has not assigned any reason as to why the amendment is not necessary for the lawful adjudication of the matter. Rival contentions of the parties are recorded in the first page of the order and in the operation portion the Court below jumped to the conclusion. 9. This is settled in law that reasons are heartbeat of conclusion. In absence of reason no conclusion can be permitted to stand. The apex Court in Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, emphasized the need for assigning reasons in judicial, quasi-judicial and administrative decision. The said portion reads as under:- “(a) In India the judicial trend has always been to record reasons, even in administrative decisions, if such decisions affect anyone prejudicially. (b) A quasi-judicial authority must record reasons in support of its conclusions. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (c) Insistence on recording of reasons is meant to serve the wider principle of justice that justice must not only be done it must also appear to be done as well. (d) Recording of reasons also operates as a valid restraint on any possible arbitrary exercise of judicial and quasi-judicial or even administrative power. (e) Reasons reassure that discretion has been exercised by the decision-maker on relevant grounds and by disregarding extraneous considerations. (f) Reasons have virtually become as indispensable a component of a decision making process as observing principles of natural justice by judicial, quasi-judicial and even by administrative bodies. (g) Reasons facilitate the process of judicial review by superior Courts. (h) The ongoing judicial trend in all countries committed to rule of law and constitutional governance is in favour of reasoned decisions based on relevant facts. This is virtually the lifeblood of judicial decision-making justifying the principle that reason is the soul of justice. (i) Judicial or even quasi-judicial opinions these days can be as different as the judges and authorities who deliver them. All these decisions serve one common purpose which is to demonstrate by reason that the relevant factors have been objectively considered. This is important for sustaining the litigants’ faith in the justice delivery system. (j) Insistence on reason is a requirement for both judicial accountability and transparency. (k) If a judge or a quasi-judicial authority is not candid enough about his/her decision-making process then it is impossible to know whether the person deciding is faithful to the doctrine of precedent or to principles of incrementalism. (l) Reasons in support of decisions must be cogent, clear and succinct. A pretence of reasons or “rubber-stamp reasons” is not to be equated with a valid decision-making process. (m) It cannot be doubted that transparency is the sine qua non of restraint on abuse of judicial powers. Transparency in decision-making not only makes the judges and decision-makers less prone to errors but also makes them subject to broader scrutiny. (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. (n) Since the requirement to record reasons emanates from the broad doctrine of fairness in decision-making, the said requirement is now virtually a component of human rights and was considered part of Strasbourg Jurisprudence. (o) In all common law jurisdictions judgments play a vital role in setting up precedents for the future. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”. 10. Accordingly, I am unable to uphold the order dated 27.9.2013, which is not pregnant with any reason. Resultantly, the said order dated 27.9.2013 is set aside. The Court below is directed to rehear the parties on the application under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law. 11. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the said application.