ORDER 1. This petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution is directed against the order dated 18.1.2011, whereby the Court below has allowed an application for amendment preferred under Order 6 Rule 17 CPC. 2. The respondent No.1/plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding an agriculture land praying inter alia that it be declared that the agriculture land in question is the ancestral property in which only one plaintiff has right, title and interest and the sale deed executed by father of plaintiff is not binding upon the plaintiff being null and void. The trial Court dismissed the suit of plaintiff on 15.10.2005. The plaintiff filed First Appeal No. 76A/2005 against the dismissal of the suit. The first appellate Court remanded the matter with certain directions. On remand, the plaintiff filed the amendment application on 30.11.2009. The same was opposed by the other side by filing reply. In reply, Annexure P-6, it is stated that the plaintiff was well aware about the factual matrix of the matter which became part of the amendment application. The plaintiff has not chosen to file the amendment application with quite promptitude and with due diligence and, therefore, at this stage on remand the amendment is impermissible. A special objection was also taken that on remand the amendment cannot be allowed. 3. Shri N.K.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioners assailed the order on the grounds raised in reply to amendment application. 4. Shri J.P.Mishra, learned counsel for the plaintiff submits that amendment will not change the nature of the case and there was nothing in the order of first appellate Court which precludes the plaintiff to file an application for amendment. He submits that most of the documents relied upon in application for amendment are already on record and, therefore, it will not cause any prejudice to the other side. In support of his contention, he relied on 2008 RN 285 = 2008 (2) MPLJ 417 (Chunnilal (since dead) through Lrs Puniya Bai v. State of MP and others); and 2008 RN 362 = 2008 (III) MPJR 317 (Bhivji through Lrs Smt. Kamla Bai v. Rajesh and others). He also relied on (2012) 2 SCC 300 (J. Samuel and others v. Gattu Mahesh and others). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. He also relied on (2012) 2 SCC 300 (J. Samuel and others v. Gattu Mahesh and others). 5. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 6. The first appellate Court while remanding the matter has passed following directions:- **46- bl dkj.k ls oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr nksuksa vkosnu i= vkbZ , ua 3 o 4 vkns’k 41 fu;e 27 lh ih lh dks Lohdkj fd;k tkrk gS vkSj mDr nLrkostksa dks fopkj.k U;k;ky; ds vfHkys[k ij j[kus dk vkns’k fn;k tkrk gSA oknh ds izLrqr nLrkostksa ds [kaMu dk volj Hkh izfroknhx.k dks nksuksa vko’;d gSA tSlk fd U;k; n`”Vkar f’koynkl fo- uSehpan] 1975 ,e ih ,y ts ,l ,u 69 esa ekuuh; mPp U;k;ky; us ;g vo/kkfjr fd;k gS fd tgk¡ U;k;ky; vfrfjDr lk{; ysuk Lohdkj djrk gS ogk¡ ij ;g Hkh vko’;d gS fd fojks/kh i{k dks mDr vfrfjDr lk{; dk [kaMu djus dk i;kZIr volj iznku fd;k tkos] ftlesa nLrkosth lk{; vkSj ekSf[kd lk{; dk volj Hkh nsuk mfpr ekuk gSA 48- vr% mijksDrkuqlkj oknh ds vkbZ , ua 3 o 4 dks Lohdkj djus ls fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir fu.kZ; o t;i= dks vikLr dj vkns’k 41 fu;e 23 lh ih lh ds varxZr of.kZr O;ogkj izdj.k dks iqu% fopkj.k ds fy;s izfrizsf”kr djuk mfpr o vko’;d jgsxk vkSj ;g funsZ’k nsuk vko’;d jgsxk fd og oknh dh vksj ls izLrqr fd;s x;s nLrkostksa ds [kaMu esa izfroknhx.k dks nLrkost izLrqr djus dk volj nsdj mHk;i{kksa dks iqu% vfrfjDr lk{; dks volj nsdj izdj.k dk iqu% mfpr :i ls fof/k vuqlkj fujkdj.k djsAa ,slh fLFkfr esa fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr vk{ksfir fu.kZ; o t;i= dks vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA** A bare perusal of the remand order shows that the remand was for a limited purpose. The entire matter was not directed to be reopened. No liberty was reserved to the plaintiff to file an application for amendment. This point was considered by this Court in Rajaram v. Vithabai and others, 1990 JLJ 71. The relevant portion reads as under:- “It is also settled that the Court, to which the case is remanded back, has to comply with the order of remand and any action not in compliance with the order of remand or acting contrary to the order of remand, is contrary to law. The relevant portion reads as under:- “It is also settled that the Court, to which the case is remanded back, has to comply with the order of remand and any action not in compliance with the order of remand or acting contrary to the order of remand, is contrary to law. After remand, the jurisdiction of the lower Court depends upon the terms of the order of remand. Even the Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application for allowing an amendment in the plaint if it is not directed in the order of remand.” 7. Considering the aforesaid, in my opinion, the Court below has clearly erred in allowing the application for amendment. The specific objections raised by the present petitioners in their reply to amendment application are not considered, discussed and dealt with. The Court below was obliged to deal with the specific objections taken by the petitioners in their reply to amendment application. The Court below has not taken pains to assign reason as to why the reply of the petitioners is not found trustworthy. In my opinion, it was obligatory on the part of the trial court to deal with the stand of the present petitioners in their aforesaid reply. In absence of reason, conclusions cannot be permitted to stand. Reasons are heartbeats of conclusion. The apex Court has emphasized the necessity to assign reasons in judicial, quasi judicial and administrative proceedings. In Kranti Associates Private Limited v. Masood Ahmed Khan, (2010) 9 SCC 496, the apex Court opined 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. (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. (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. Therefore, for development of law, requirement of giving reasons for the decision is of the essence and is virtually a part of “due process”. 8. For these reasons, in my opinion, petition deserves to be allowed. 9. However, before concluding the matter, I deem it proper to deal with the contention of Shri J.P.Mishra. The judgment in Chunnilal (supra) has no application in the facts of the present case. 8. For these reasons, in my opinion, petition deserves to be allowed. 9. However, before concluding the matter, I deem it proper to deal with the contention of Shri J.P.Mishra. The judgment in Chunnilal (supra) has no application in the facts of the present case. The judgment in Bhivji (supra) has also no application on the question of amendment application. So far the judgment in J.Samuel (supra) is concerned, the apex Court reiterated the principles for considering an amendment application. “Due diligence” is one of the main consideration. In the present case, the plaintiff has failed to show any due diligence and has not assigned any justiciable reasons for filing the amendment application at a belated stage. No specific dates are mentioned in the amendment application which shows that the facts or documents came to his knowledge on a later date or subsequently. In other words, the plaintiff has made a bald averment in Annexure P-5 that he had received information about certain documents lateron. The date, source of information or evidence in this regard is not disclosed in the amendment application. After the amendment in Order 6 Rule 17 CPC, it is obligatory on the part of a party to show and establish due diligence. The plaintiff has failed to establish due diligence. 10. For these cumulative reasons, impugned order cannot be permitted to stand and is hereby set aside. Petition is allowed. No costs. ........