IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA C.R. No.1526 of 2006 RAM SAHEB YADAV @ RAM SEWAK PRASAD Versus SURYA NARAIN YADAV & ORS ----------- 2. 5.12.2008 Heard Mr. Sidheshwari Prasad Singh, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner. This Court is literally amazed by the mechanical and perfunctory approach adopted by the court below while passing the impugned order allowing amendment in the written statement. True it is, that the plaintiff- petitioner was not represented when the application for amendment of the written statement was pressed by the defendant- opposite parties. None-the-less there was a rejoinder on behalf of the petitioner to the application seeking amendment in the written statement on record, which according to the impugned order itself contained sufficient materials for opposing such amendment. It is rather curious that not a word by way of finding and/or reason has been said in the impugned order allowing amendment in the written statement and in fact the court below in a most casual and perfunctory manner has allowed amendment. 2 The impugned order being a judicial order thus cannot be sustained. In that view of the matter, this application is allowed. The impugned order is set aside and the court below is directed to reconsider the prayer for amendment in the written statement after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and pass a fresh order strictly in accordance with law in terms of Order-VI Rule 17 C.P.c. and also without being prejudiced by the contents of this order. (Mihir Kumar Jha,J.) Surendra/