JUDGMENT : Abhilasha Kumari, J. Rule. Mr. K.S. Chandrani, learned advocate, waives service of notice of Rule on behalf of respondent No.2. The proceedings have abated qua respondent No.1. Respondents Nos.3.1 to 3.6 have been served but have chosen not to appear before this Court, therefore, there is no requirement of issuing notice of Rule to them. 2. The challenge in this petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, is to the order dated 10.12.2012, passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, in Regular Civil Suit No.1538 of 1996, whereby the application of the petitioner at Exh.35, for amendment in the plaint, has been rejected. 3. The petitioner, who is the original plaintiff, has instituted Regular Civil Suit No.1538 of 1996 against the respondents (original defendants) for declaration and permanent injunction. On 25.02.2002, the petitioner filed an application for amendment of the plaint under Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ("the Code" for short). The respondents filed their reply to the said application. However, before adjudicating the application on merits, the Trial Court rejected it vide the impugned order dated 10.12.2012, inter-alia, on the ground that the learned advocate for the petitioner was not present when the application was called out and no application for adjournment had been filed by him. Aggrieved by the above-mentioned order, the petitioner is before this Court. 4. Mr. A.S. Ashtavadi, learned advocate for the petitioner, has submitted that the Trial Court has gravely erred in dismissing the application of the petitioner merely on the ground that his advocate was not present and that the application is pending for ten years. That the impugned order is an unreasoned, cryptic and non-speaking order. The Trial Court has cursorily dismissed the application of the petitioner without any discussion on merits. The dismissal of the application has prejudiced the legal rights of the petitioner and caused injustice to him. 4.1 On the above grounds, it is submitted that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and the petition allowed. 5. Mr. K.S. Chandrani, learned advocate for respondent No.2, submits that an appropriate order be passed and that he has no objection if the application is directed to be decided on merits. 6. 4.1 On the above grounds, it is submitted that the impugned order be quashed and set aside and the petition allowed. 5. Mr. K.S. Chandrani, learned advocate for respondent No.2, submits that an appropriate order be passed and that he has no objection if the application is directed to be decided on merits. 6. This Court has heard learned counsel for the respective parties, perused the averments made in the application, contents of the impugned order and other documents on record. 7. A bare perusal of the impugned order reveals that the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner carry considerable weight. 8. The impugned order is not only cursory and cryptic, it is also an unreasoned order. It may be noted that Order 6 Rule 17 of the Code empowers the Court to grant an application for amendment of pleadings at any stage of the suit. The only embargo that has been put by the Legislature is by way of the proviso, which mandates that once the trial has commenced, no application for amendment shall be allowed unless the party making the application shows that it could not bring the amendment earlier in spite of due diligence. When an application for amendment has been filed under the said provision of law, it is incumbent upon the Court to apply its mind to the application in the context of the relevant provision of law. Merely by stating that the learned advocate for the petitioner is not present and the application has remained pending for ten years, is not a legal or justifiable ground for the rejection of the application. From a perusal of the the impugned order, this Court is unable to even gauge at what stage of the proceedings, the application was filed. The Trial Court is bound to apply its mind and decide matters in accordance with law, and in consonance with the relevant provisions of law. The purpose for which Courts are functioning, is to render justice to the parties, in accordance with law. By rejecting the application of the petitioner in such a cryptic manner, the Trial Court has truncated the litigation abruptly without giving the petitioner a chance to put forward his case. Had the Trial Court passed an order on merits, it would have enabled the aggrieved party to carry it forward in appropriate proceedings. By rejecting the application of the petitioner in such a cryptic manner, the Trial Court has truncated the litigation abruptly without giving the petitioner a chance to put forward his case. Had the Trial Court passed an order on merits, it would have enabled the aggrieved party to carry it forward in appropriate proceedings. The impugned order is a non-speaking one, apart from being bereft of reasons. The Trial Court has not considered the merits of the application but has rejected it on hyper technical and irrelevant grounds, such an approach would give rise to multiplicity of litigation. 9. It is a settled position of law enunciated by the Supreme Court and this Court in a catena of decisions that it is incumbent upon the Courts to give sound and cogent reasons in support of the conclusion arrived at. The absence of the advocate for the petitioner on the date of the hearing and the fact that the application for amendment has remained pending for ten years is, in the view of this Court, hardly a good ground for dismissing the application. Reasons should be given on the merits of the case and not on nongermane issues, such as in the present case. 10. It would be appropriate, at this stage, to refer to the settled law in this regard. 11. In Union of India & Ors. v. Jai Prakash Singh & Anr., reported in AIR 2007 SC 1363 , the Supreme Court has held as below: "7. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment no sustainable." 12. In Daya Ram v. Raghunath & Ors. reported in 2007(8) SCALE 552, it has been stated that:- "8. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable. 9. Reasons introduce clarity in an order. On plainest consideration of justice, the High Court ought to have set forth its reasons, howsoever brief, in its order indicative of an application of its mind, all the more when its order is amenable to further avenue of challenge. The absence of reasons has rendered the High Court's judgment not sustainable. 9. Even in respect of administrative orders Lord Denning M.R. in Breen v. Amalgamated Engineering Union, (1971 (1) All ER 1148) observed "The giving of reasons is one of the fundamentals of good administration". In Alexander Machinery (Dudley) Ltd. v. Crabtree, (1974 LCR 120) it was observed "Failure to give reasons amounts to denial of justice". Reasons are live links between the mind of the decision taker to the controversy in question and the decision or conclusion arrived at". Reasons substitute subjectivity by objectivity. The emphasis on recording reasons is that if the decision reveals the "inscrutable face of the sphinx", it can, by its silence, render it virtually impossible for the Courts to perform their appellate function or exercise the power of judicial review in adjudging the validity of the decision. Right to reasons is an indispensable part of a sound judicial system, reasons at least sufficient to indicate an application of mind to the matter before Court. Another rationale is that the affected party can know why the decision has gone against him. One of the salutary requirements of natural justice is spelling out reasons for the order made, in other words, a speaking out. The "inscrutable face of a sphinx" is ordinarily incongruous with a judicial or quasi-judicial performance." 13. In National Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Gulab Nabi & Anr., reported in AIR 2009 SC 743 , the Supreme Court has held as below: "7. Non-application of mind is clear from the fact that since the State was not a party, the question of hearing the learned Standing Counsel for the State does not arise. The order therefore has been passed without any application of mind. The order is also non-reasoned." 14. In Ram Phal v. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp.) 1410, the Supreme Court has held as below: "7. The order therefore has been passed without any application of mind. The order is also non-reasoned." 14. In Ram Phal v. State of Haryana & Others reported in AIR 2009 SC (Supp.) 1410, the Supreme Court has held as below: "7. Having gone through the impugned order, in our considered view, we cannot sustain the same for the reasons, that, in the writ petition filed, the appellant had raised several issues in support of the relief sought in the writ petition. The High Court without examining any one of the issues raised and canvassed, by cryptic and non-reasoned order, has dismissed the writ petition. In our view, this is not the way a petition filed under Article 226 or 227 of the Constitution of India is to be disposed of. The duty to give reasons for coming to a decision is of decisive importance which cannot be lawfully disregarded. The giving of the satisfactory reasons is required by the ordinary man's sense of justice and also a healthy discipline for all those who exercise power over others...". 15. In Raj Kishore Jha v. State of Bihar and Ors., reported in 2003(11) SCC 519 , the Supreme Court has held that "reason is the heartbeat of every conclusion. Without the same, it becomes lifeless". 16. Examining the impugned order in the light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-mentioned judgments, it is clear that there has been no application of mind, whatsoever, by the Trial Court, while passing the same. The impugned order contains no cogent reasons in accordance with law in support of the conclusion arrived at. The contentions raised by the petitioner in the application for amendment have not even been touched upon, leave alone considered, while passing the said order. The reasons that have been given, if they can be called so, are not justifiable and do not flow from an examination of the application of the petitioner in the context of the relevant provisions of law. 17. For the above reasons, this Court considers that the present case is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 18. As a result of the above discussion, the following order is passed: The petition is partly-allowed. 17. For the above reasons, this Court considers that the present case is a fit case to exercise jurisdiction vested in it under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. 18. As a result of the above discussion, the following order is passed: The petition is partly-allowed. The impugned order dated 10.12.2012 passed by the learned 5th Additional Senior Civil Judge, Rajkot, below the application at Exh.35 in Regular Civil Suit No.1538 of 1996 is quashed and set aside. The matter is remanded to the Trial Court for fresh hearing and decision on merits, in accordance with law and after granting the parties an adequate opportunity of hearing. Considering that the impugned order has been passed on 10.12.2012, the Trial Court shall expedite the hearing and decision upon the application for amendment. The decision shall be rendered as expeditiously as possible and preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. The parties shall co-operate in the proceedings. 19. Rule is made absolute, accordingly. There shall be no orders as to costs. Petition Partly Allowed.