Judgment : Subrata Talukdar, J. A short order dated 6th November, 2013 passed in Money Suit no.20856 of 2012 by the Learned 2nd Civil Court (Senior Division) at Alipore, Dist. - South 24 Parganas is assailed in this civil revisional application. By the said impugned Order the Learned Trial Court was pleased to allow the application filed by the defendants under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure thereby permitting the defendants to amend the written statement in accordance with the schedule of the proposed amendment. While doing so the Learned Trial Court was pleased to observe that the plaintiff has taken no step on the date fixed, i.e. 6th November, 2013 for hearing of the petition filed by the defendant for amendment and also for preemptory hearing of the suit. On the non-appearance of the Learned Advocate for the plaintiff, the Learned Trial Court found satisfaction with the intended amendments to be incorporated in the written statement and hence allowed the amendment petition in the absence of the plaintiff. The first point argued by Sri Mukherjee, Learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner-plaintiff is that the Learned Trial Court could not have allowed the amendment petition without affording any opportunity of hearing to the other side. In this connection he heavily relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ramrik Vallabhdas Madhram & Ors. Vs. Taraben Pravinlal Madhram reported in 2004 1 SCC 497 . Sri Mukherjee asserts that the Hon’ble Apex Court was unexceptional in holding at para 14 of the said judgment that no amendment application can be allowed without affording an opportunity of hearing to the opposite party. The second contention of Sri Mukherjee is that the impugned Order dated 6th November, 2013 is bereft of reasons. Sri Mukherjee points out that it is the sine qua non of any judicial Order that the same should disclose adequate reasons. Sri Mukherjee argues that the Order impugned dated 6th November, 2013 is indeed very cryptic inasmuch as the Learned Trial Court has disclosed its approval of the proposed amendments in an omnibus and perfunctory manner before finding such amendments necessary for proper determination of the issues involved. Sri Mukherjee pleads that such perfunctory satisfaction recorded equally perfunctorily in the said impugned Order dated 6th November, 2013 cannot be a substitute for the requirement of any Court to give wholesome reasons. Sri Mukherjee pleads that such perfunctory satisfaction recorded equally perfunctorily in the said impugned Order dated 6th November, 2013 cannot be a substitute for the requirement of any Court to give wholesome reasons. In this connection Sri Mukherjee relies upon a decision reported in 2000 3 CHN 97 (Para 34). The said decision is an authority on the point that reason is the soul of an Order. Sri Mukherjee also draws the attention of this Court to the date of filing of the plaint which is 30th May, 2013. He further points out that on the verification page of the amendment application the same date is entered viz. 30th May, 2013. The amendment application was served three months thereafter, that is on 6th of September, 2013. Taking this Court to the provisions of Order 8 Rule 9A of the Code of Civil Procedure Sri Mukherjee emphasises that correct procedure demands that all documents to be relied upon by the parties must be filed with their pleadings. In such view of the matter it was incumbent upon the opposite party-defendant to file and/or disclose all documents by submitting them with the written statement. Sri Mukherjee says that no documents were filed by the defendants with their written statement. However, at the stage of filing the proposed amendment the defendants have sought to rely upon 24 documents which, according to Sri Mukherjee has the effect of substantial by altering the tenor of the original pleadings. Sri Mukherjee further argues that the luxury of filing such voluminous documents by way of a proposed amendment cannot be made available to the defendants ex parte without affording the other side, an opportunity of contesting the same. Per contra Sri Suvadeep Sen, Learned Counsel appearing for the opposite parties-defendants has emphatically pointed out that it was incumbent upon Sri Mukherjee’a client, the plaintiff to take steps before the Learned Trial Court on the date fixed, viz. 6th November, 2013. He submits that from the record of the Order passed by the Learned Trial Court on 6th November, 2013 it shall be apparent that the plaintiff did not take any step by filing hazira. He was also absent in spite of the fact that the Learned Trial Court waited to call the matter at 11.45 am. 6th November, 2013. He submits that from the record of the Order passed by the Learned Trial Court on 6th November, 2013 it shall be apparent that the plaintiff did not take any step by filing hazira. He was also absent in spite of the fact that the Learned Trial Court waited to call the matter at 11.45 am. In such circumstances, according to Sri Sen the petitioner-plaintiff is not entitled to any further concession of another date to be fixed by the Learned Trial Court for hearing him on the amendment application. Sri Sen asserts that the onus is on the petitioner-plaintiff to prove his vigilance and bonafides before the Learned Trial Court by taking steps on the date fixed. The Learned Trial Court is guided by the steps on record required to be taken by the parties on the date fixed. In the absence of any hazira filed by the petitioner-plaintiff on the said date, i.e. 6th November, 2013, there was no infirmity and/or illegality on the part of the Learned Trial Court to take up the matter and consequently allow the amendment application. Sri Sen further argues that the recording of reasons by a Court is proportional to the extent of adjudication necessary on the issue at hand. Sri Sen argues that the Learned Trial Court did record reasons proportionate to the task before it on the given date. The reasons are as follows:- “On perusal of the schedule of the proposed amendment I find that the facts which the defendants intend to incorporate are necessary for proper determination of the issues involved in the suit.” According to Sri Sen the reasons reflected in the aforesaid lines do disclose application of mind by the Learned Trial Court to the schedule of proposed amendments prior to allowing the same. In this connection he relies upon a decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court reported in 2009 14 SCC 38 (Sushil Kumar Jain Vs. Manoj Kumar and Anr.; Paras – 12, 13, 14) which is an authority on the point that amendment of written statement and amendment of plaint are not necessarily governed by the same principle. Approving the view taken in Baldev Singh Vs. Manohar Singh in (2006) 6 SCC 498 (Para – 15) and in Usha Balasaheb Swami Vs. Manoj Kumar and Anr.; Paras – 12, 13, 14) which is an authority on the point that amendment of written statement and amendment of plaint are not necessarily governed by the same principle. Approving the view taken in Baldev Singh Vs. Manohar Singh in (2006) 6 SCC 498 (Para – 15) and in Usha Balasaheb Swami Vs. Kiran Appaso Swami in (2007) 5 SCC 602 the Court was pleased to observe that adding a new ground of defence or substituting or altering a defence does not raise the same problem as adding, altering or substituting a new cause of action. The Court thereafter opined in favour of a more liberal approach to be adopted while examining a plea of amendment of written statement. Sri Sen therefore points out that the Learned Trial Court has rightly discharged its duties in the face of the nonappearance of the plaintiff before it on the scheduled date and in the absence of any written objection filed by the plaintiff to the amendment application. The Learned Counsel has urged that from the very nature of the proposed amendments which have been annexed to this revisional application at page 66 thereof it shall be clear that such amendments along with the documents in support thereof are innocent of any design, merely supplemental and not in any deviation of the original pleadings. He pleads that the Order impugned of the Learned Trial Court dated 6th November, 2013 must be sustained. Heard the rival submissions and considered the materials on record. This Court cannot help but remind the parties of the elementary position that any adversarial litigation is not between two specialised advocates but between two anxious litigants. Admittedly from the Order dated 6th November, 2013 it transpires that no steps were taken by the petitioner-plaintiff before the Learned Trial Court. For such omission this Court is inclined to accept the explanation offered by Sri Mukherjee that no litigant ought to suffer due to any laches on the part of his conducting counsel. Admittedly, the onus of taking steps before any Court lies within the domain and control of the conducting advocates. For simply the reason that the Learned conducting advocate of the petitioner-plaintiff omitted to take steps before the Learned Trial Court on the date fixed, the petitioner-plaintiff cannot be shut out at the stage when the Court decides an important issue of allowing the proposed amendments. For simply the reason that the Learned conducting advocate of the petitioner-plaintiff omitted to take steps before the Learned Trial Court on the date fixed, the petitioner-plaintiff cannot be shut out at the stage when the Court decides an important issue of allowing the proposed amendments. This Court notices that the pleadings filed by the parties is the substratum for consideration of any lis. In such circumstances the petitioner-plaintiff is entitled to be afforded an opportunity of making himself heard at the pre-amendment stage, irrespective of the merits or otherwise of the proposed amendments. The non-affording of such opportunity by the Learned Trial Court in the instant case runs contrary to the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court as laid down in 2004 1 SCC 497 Para 14 in Ramrik’s case (supra). This Court also cannot help but notice the limits of its reasoning disclosed by the Learned Trial Court. It is obvious that the limited satisfaction expressed by the Learned Trial Court stems from hearing one party to the lis and, on hearing both parties such reasons can be expanded. No doubt the reasons, as reflected in the Order impugned are merely omnibus and would hold good in case of any Order by which any amendment is sought to be allowed. In such circumstances this Court opines that the Learned Trial Court would be more advantageously placed for disclosing fuller reasons if both parties to the lis are heard. This Court also cannot help but notice from the pleadings before it that although the amendment application was verified on 30th May, 2003 contemporaneous to the verification of the written statement, the same was not served upon the petitioner-plaintiff till 30th September, 2012. Although Sri Sen states that the petitioner-plaintiff took adjournments on three further dates after that, this Court notices that the amendment application came up for hearing a full one year later on 6th November, 2013 from date on which it was served on the plaintiffs, i.e. 30th September, 2012. This Court also takes notice of Sri Mukherjee’s arguments that the opposite party-defendant should not be allowed to produce documents by way of an amendment when such documents could have been produced by him at the stage of filing his written statement. This Court also takes notice of Sri Mukherjee’s arguments that the opposite party-defendant should not be allowed to produce documents by way of an amendment when such documents could have been produced by him at the stage of filing his written statement. Reiterating the off-quoted principle that nothing should be allowed to be done indirectly which could be done directly, Sri Mukherjee points out that the incorporation of as many as 24 documents by way of the proposed amendment defeats the very purpose of the statutory enactment, viz. Order 8 Rule 1A of the Code of Civil Procedure which ordains that the documents necessary to be relied upon by either parties should be filed along with their pleadings. This procedure is in the statute for the simple purpose of allowing the other side to have complete knowledge of the stand of the adversary. It is further apparent from the identical dates of verification on both the written statement and the amendment petition that the defendants were always in knowledge of their supplemental pleadings and therefore cannot be allowed at this stage to incorporate the same without putting the plaintiff on notice. By allowing the opposite party-defendant to incorporate as many as 24 documents without the knowledge of the petitioner-plaintiff shall amount to irretrievable prejudice not contemplated by statutory procedure. In such circumstances, Sri Mukherjee argues and, this Court is in appreciation of such argument, that the Learned Trial Court ought to have heard the proposed amendment on contest and thereafter proceeded to pronounce its final Order. Accordingly the Order dated 6th November, 2013 passed by the Learned Second Civil Court (Senior Division) at Alipore in MS 20856 of 2012 is set aside. The Learned Trial Court is directed to hear out the proposed amendment petition on contest on a date suitable to its calendar without granting unnecessary adjournment to either parties. CO 304 of 2014 is accordingly allowed. There will be however no Order as to costs. Urgent certified photocopies of this judgement, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties upon compliance of all formalities.