JUDGMENT : KRISHNA S DIXIT, J. 1. Third defendant in O.S.No.130 of 2014 filed by the first respondent herein is calling in question the order dated 25.11.2016 made by the learned I-Additional Senior Civil Judge & CJM, Dharwad rejecting his application filed under Order VII, Rule 3 of CPC, 1908. 2. After service of notice, the contesting respondent No.1 has entered appearance through Prof. A.P. Murari, who opposes the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that on the eventful day i.e., on 01.10.2016 it was only petitioner's another application filed under Order VII Rule 11 of CPC, 1908 was heard and that the application filed under Order VII Rule 3 of CPC was not heard at all; learned Judge without giving any reason has summarily rejected this application by the impugned order, whereby his another application filed under Order VII Rule 11, this Court has also been rejected. So contending, he seeks allowing of the writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.1 submits that whatever the order sheet reflects may or may not be true position; both applications appear to have been heard on that day; this Court in petitioner's W.P.No.109842 of 2016 has upheld the contentions of the respondents herein and therefore, the observations therein may come in the way of the petitioner maintaining this writ petition. 5. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.1, notice to other respondents having been dispensed with. I have perused the petition papers and the decision cited at the Bar. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that on the eventful day only his application filed under Order VII, Rule 11 alone was heard and other application filed by him under Order VII Rule 3 was not heard, is supported by the order sheet dated 01.10.2016, which reads as under: 1/10/16 P-A.P.M. D.1&2 -RSP D.3&4- SVP/LVP D.5 - A.A.K. Hg. On IA ----- S.R. Adv filed vakalath of D3. Heard S.R. on IA U/O 7 Rule 11 of CPC. APM Adv PT for hg on IA Call on 22/10 Sd/- 1/10 The above contention of the petitioner otherwise also is supported by the absence of reasoning in the impugned order for rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 3 of CPC. 7. Heard S.R. on IA U/O 7 Rule 11 of CPC. APM Adv PT for hg on IA Call on 22/10 Sd/- 1/10 The above contention of the petitioner otherwise also is supported by the absence of reasoning in the impugned order for rejecting the application filed under Order VII Rule 3 of CPC. 7. The Apex Court and this Court have consistently held that every order should have a reasoning part, which would show due application of mind by the one who decides the matter. Absolutely no reason is forthcoming from the impugned order for rejecting petitioner's application under Order VII, Rule 3. Therefore, this matter merits remand for reconsideration at the hands of the trial Court. 8. Learned counsel for the contesting respondent No.1 submits that already issues have been framed and that the fourth issue relates to the contention taken by the petitioner in his application under Order VII Rule 3 of CPC; this issue essentially being of fact needs recording of evidence and therefore, the main matter itself can be taken up by the Court below along with other issues. This contention I would have straight way accepted had the Court below rejected petitioner's application filed under Order VII Rule 3 of CPC on that ground. But that is not so. 9. The other contention of the learned counsel for respondent No.1 that this Court in petitioner's W.P.No.109842 of 2016 vide judgment dated 3rd July 2017 has already rejected his similar contention is bit difficult to accept; at the fag end of paragraph No.11 in the judgment a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, has observed as under: "11. xxxxx Therefore, in my opinion, though there are discrepancies in describing the schedule, the same may not be sufficient at this stage to reject the plaint." 10. Considering it's nature, the observation in the said judgment cannot be taken as due adjudication. The Apex Court has laid down principles as to how a judgment should be understood, in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Dr. Karan Singh and others, (1993) Supp4 SCC 500 , wherein it is held as under: "The basic rules of interpreting Court judgments are the same as those of construing other documents. The Apex Court has laid down principles as to how a judgment should be understood, in the case of Commissioner of Wealth Tax vs. Dr. Karan Singh and others, (1993) Supp4 SCC 500 , wherein it is held as under: "The basic rules of interpreting Court judgments are the same as those of construing other documents. The only difference is that the Judges are presumed to know the tendency of parties concerned to interpret the language in the judgments differently to suit their purposes and the consequent importance that the words have to be chosen very carefully so as not to give room for controversy. The principle is that if the language in a judgment is plain and unambiguous and can be reasonably interpreted in only one way it has to be understood in that sense, and any involved principle of artificial construction has to be avoided. Further, if there be any doubt about the decision, the entire judgment has to be considered, and a stray sentence or a casual remark cannot be treated as a decision." 11. In the above circumstances, this writ petition succeeds in part; a writ of certiorari issues quashing the impugned order dated 25.11.2016 made by the trial Court so far as petitioner's application filed under Order VII, Rule 3 is concerned; matter is remitted back for consideration afresh, after hearing the learned counsel appearing for the parties, expeditiously within an outer limit of three months. All contentions are kept open.