JUDGMENT : The above original petition is filed challenging Ext P7 order in I.A. No. 1775 of 2017 in O.S. No. 162 of 82 on the file of the Munsiff Court Punalur whereby the application seeking amendment of the plaint was allowed. 2. Petitioners are the defendants in O.S. No. 162 of 82 on the file of the Munsiff Court Punalur, a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession. The Trial Court decreed the suit which was confirmed in appeal. But this Court in S.A. No. 157 of 2002 set aside the said judgment and decree and remitted back the same for reconsideration, finding that the matter in dispute requires reconsideration by the Trial Court in the light of Mohammedan Law and the parties were permitted to amend the pleadings and reliefs and also to adduce fresh evidence. After the remand, the plaintiff filed I.A. No. 1775 of 2017 in O.S. No. 162 of 82 seeking to amend the plaint. Ext.P6 objection was filed mainly contending that by the proposed amendment attempt is now made to introduce a new cause of action and the same will change the nature of the suit and the same is not in consonance with the observation made by this Court in S.A. No. 157 of 2002. But the said amendment was allowed as per Ext.P7 order which is challenged in this original petition. 3. It is the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that none of the objections raised in Ext.P6 was considered or even discussed in Ext.P7 order. It is also contended that the Trial Court has not applied its mind and even without specifying whether the amendment will take effect from the date of petition or from the date of suit, allowed the application solely relying on the direction issued by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment. It is further contended that the specific finding in Ext.P4 judgment that in view of Clause 63 of Mohammedan Law, defendants 1 and 3 to 5 are co-owners of the property as per devolution, and the suit for recovery cannot be allowed and at the most Shahul Hameed and Sainudeen can claim partition and separate possession of the property and also that the plaintiff cannot claim anything more than what was due to Shahul Hameed and Sainudeen, was not considered by the Trial Court while issuing Ext.P7 order. By the amendment, a totally new case has been pleaded and thus totally changed the nature and character of the suit and resulted in introduction of a new cause of action which is barred by limitation. 4. Learned Counsel appearing for the respondents submits that this Court, by Ext.P4 judgment, has permitted the parties to amend the pleadings and reliefs and adduce fresh evidence and it is based on the same that Ext P7 order was issued and therefore, the order does not call for any interference by this Court. 5. I have considered the rival contentions of both sides. 6. Ext.P6 is the objection raised by the petitioner to Ext.P5 petition seeking amendment contending that a new cause of action has been raised which is barred by limitation and the amendment will change the nature and cause of action of the suit and the same is not permissible. It is also contended that the amendment is not in tune with the spirit and observations made by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment. A perusal of Ext.P7 order would reveal that none of the objections raised in Ext.P6 was considered or seen reflected in the order and the amendment was allowed essentially stating that this Court has in Ext.P4 observed that the parties are at liberty to amend the pleading and held that in view of the said observation of this Court, the contention raised by the respondents therein cannot be entertained. Though various contentions were raised by the petitioners in Ext P6 objection including that the cause of action now raised is barred by limitation and that the amendment will change the nature and character of the suit, none of these contentions were dealt with while issuing Ext.P7 order. The only reason stated for not entertaining the contentions in Ext.P6 objection is the liberty granted by this Court in Ext.P4 judgment to amend the pleadings. Only for the reason that this Court by Ext.P4 granted liberty to amend the pleading, it cannot be said that the objection raised in Ext.P6 cannot be entertained. Application for amendment has to be considered on merits after considering the objections raised in Ext.P6 and the Trial Court is bound to issue a reasoned order. Having not done so while issuing Ext.P7 order, the same is liable to be interfered with. Application for amendment has to be considered on merits after considering the objections raised in Ext.P6 and the Trial Court is bound to issue a reasoned order. Having not done so while issuing Ext.P7 order, the same is liable to be interfered with. Accordingly, Ext.P7 is set aside with a consequential direction to reconsider Ext.P5 application seeking amendment after considering the objection raised in Ext.P6 and pass a reasoned order, within a period of 2 months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment.