THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE GODA RAGHURAM CIVIL REVISION PETITION No. 6241 of 2006 Oral order: The respondents herein are defendants in O.S.No. 1075 of 2004 filed by the revision petitioners seeking permanent injunction in respect of the suit schedule property. The defendants filed a written statement on 2-8-2004, inter alia, denying the title of the plaintiffs to the suit schedule property. On 9-9-2004 issues were framed and by 22- 11-2004 the plaintiffs’ evidence was concluded. Thereafter, the defendants filed an application-I.A.No. 1046 of 2006 under Order VI Rule 17 CPC seeking amendment of the written statement by addition of paragraph 6 (a) (b) and (c). On a perusal of the written statement initially filed, it would appear that the present amendments to the written statement are sought to furnish details whereby the defendants claim title to the suit schedule property and to substantiate the core defence that the plaintiffs do not have title thereto. Without considering whether there was any justification for the defendants to have sought amendment of the pleadings after commencement of the trial or whether any justification was pleaded for the belated application for amendment of the pleadings and without recording any reasons, the court below allowed the respondents application-I.A.No. 1046 of 2006 by recording a laconic order which reads as under: “Heard both sides to explain the averments already made in the written statement. But it was made at a belated stage when the matter is coming up for DE. It can be completed by costs. Hence, the petition is allowed on payment of costs of Rs.200/- to the other side.” The order is unreasoned and cannot be sustained and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remanded to the court below for fresh adjudication and disposal of I.A.No. 1046 of 2006, after recording reasons for the conclusion. It requires to be noticed that merely because costs are directed to be paid to the plaintiffs is no ground for allowing an application for amendment of the pleadings without satisfying the requirements stipulated under Order VI Rule 17 CPC. The revision is disposed of. There shall however be no order as to costs. ________________________ GODA RAGHURAM, J 23rd September, 2010. GRR