JUDGMENT : K.HARILAL, J. The petitioner herein is the respondent/wife in O.P.No. 1170 of 2017 on the files of the Family Court, Thrissur. This O.P.(FC) has been filed, challenging Exts.P7 and P8 orders passed by the Family Court in I.A. Nos. 2557 of 2019 and 2558 of 2019 respectively in the said O.P.. I.A. No.2557 of 2019 was filed, under Order XI Rule 2 of CPC, seeking leave for submitting interrogatories and I.A. No. 2558 of 2019 was filed with interrogatories, under Order XI Rule 4 of CPC. This O.P.(FC) has been filed on the ground that I.A No. 2557 of 2019, which was filed seeking leave, did not contain the interrogatories. But, the Family Court has granted leave, in advance without looking at the interrogatories, by a non speaking order. 2. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondent. 3. Going by Exts.P7 and P8 orders, prima facie, we also find that those orders were passed without application of mind, by a non speaking order. It is needless to say that reasoning is the soul of a judgment and a judgment, without reasoning, is not a judgment or order in the eye of law. 4. Ext.P7 is an order granting leave to file interrogatories and Ext.P8 is another order directing the respondent to answer the interrogatories, for which leave was granted earlier, in advance. We noticed that indisputably, the Family Court has granted leave, in advance, to file interrogatories, but without examining as to whether there were any interrogatory, passed a non-speaking order. 5. Order XI Rule 2 reads thus: 2. Particular interrogatories to be submitted:- On an application for leave to deliver interrogatories, the particular interrogatories proposed to be delivered shall be submitted to the Court and that Court shall decide within seven days from the day of filing of the said application. In deciding upon such application, the Court shall take into account any offer, which may be made by the party sought to be interrogated to deliver particulars, or to make admissions, or to produce documents relating to the matters in question, or any of them, and leave shall be given as to such only of the interrogatories submitted as the Court shall consider necessary either for disposing fairly of the suit or for saving costs. 6. Rule 106 of the Civil Rules of Practice reads thus: R.106. 6. Rule 106 of the Civil Rules of Practice reads thus: R.106. Interrogatories:- (1) An application for leave to deliver interrogatories under Order XI, Rule 2 shall contain at the foot thereof the proposed interrogatories and shall be accompanied by a copy of the same and the fees prescribed for service of process. If leave is granted the copy shall be served on the other party or his pleader. (2) If a party objects to answer any interrogatory he shall state shortly the grounds of his objection in his affidavit in answer to the interrogatories. 7. The question that arises for consideration is, whether there is any illegality in granting leave, in advance, by an order, to deliver interrogatories to the opposite party, without examining the interrogatories. It is true that leave of the Court is required for delivering the interrogatories. But, it does not mean that leave must be obtained, in advance, before delivering the interrogatories to the Court. What is intended by the expression “on an application for leave to deliver interrogatories”? Leave is intended to deliver the interrogatories to the opposite party and not to the Court, for submitting it. It is made clear in Order XI Rule (2) and Rule 106(1) of the Civil Rules of Practice. 8. On a conjoined reading of the aforesaid Order and Rule, it is well discernible that on an application for leave to deliver interrogatories, the interrogatories proposed to be delivered also shall be submitted in advance to the Court. More clearly, an application for leave to deliver interrogatories shall contain at the foot thereof the proposed interrogatories also. A single application for leave containing interrogatories at the foot in Form 2 in Appendix C is sufficient. The Court can grant leave, only after examining the interrogatories. A separate order granting leave, in advance, cannot be passed, in advance, without examining the interrogatories. The Court shall grant leave or reject the application, after examining each interrogatory and thereafter direct the other party to answer the questions to which leave granted, by a single order. 9. In the above view, the impugned orders, Exts. P7 and P8 are legally unsustainable and set aside in limine. The said interlocutory applications are remitted to the Family Court for fresh consideration and disposal, in view of the observations made above. This O.P.(FC) is allowed.