IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.2186 of 2008 BAIDYANATH PANDEY Versus RAJENDRA PANDEY & ORS ----------- 2. 12.1.2009 Heard Mr. Ram Kumar Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner. It is true that the impugned order ought to have been a bit more clear and in fact speaking. The requirement of law in passing of any judicial order would be that the reasons must come out from the same as to how, on what materials and on what considerations the court had either allowed or rejected the prayer of a party. From the impugned order it would only transpire that a prayer made for amendment in the written statement has been allowed only because it was of a formal nature. The rejoinder of the plaintiff petitioner would however show that such amendment in written statement was opposed on some grounds which ought to have been noted in the narration made by the court below in the impugned order while considering the prayer for amendment in written statement. As a matter of fact, it was necessary for the court to give some 2 reasons in support of its conclusion while rejecting those objections while it had gone to allow the amendment. This Court, however, has again gone into the averments made in the application seeking amendment in the written statement as also the rejoinder filed by the plaintiff petitioner and from their reading it is clear that such amendment in the written statement was necessitated on account of certain observation made by the Pleader Commissioner in his report. How far that would be relevant, whether explanatory or otherwise will be gone into at the time of final adjudication in the light of the evidence but then an amendment of the present nature in the written statement could not have been refused by the court below. That being so, the conclusive view recorded by the court below is correct. Consequently there is merit in this Civil Revision application and the same is accordingly dismissed. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/