*1* IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.2320/2009 Tarabai Atmaram Bansode. ..Petitioner -VERSUS- Prashant Parasram Manare and others. ..Respondents ............... Mr.Sagar Kasar, Advocate for the Petitioner. Mr.M.M.Sathaye, Advocate for the Respondent No.1. ............... CORAM: A.P.DESHPANDE, J. Dated 09th November, 2009. PC:- 1 Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith. By consent of the parties, writ petition is taken up for final hearing. 2 An order passed by the Trial Court dated 03rd April, 2008 is impugned in this petition. An application was moved by the Plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 and their mother claiming to be the legal representatives of the deceased Defendant No.1. The said application was vehemently opposed by the Defendant No.4 (Petitioner herein) by raising various grounds which are set out on page No.37 of the petition. The objections were filed by the Petitioner/Defendant No.4 on 10th December, 2005. Without considering the said objections, by a cryptic order which seems to have been passed mechanically, the Trial Court allowed the application solely on the ground that the application was moved *2* within limitation. 3 The learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the impugned order clearly reveals non application of mind and the order is bad in law as it fails to consider the objections raised by the Petitioner. 4 The learned counsel for the Respondent No.1 finds it difficult to sustain the order as the same is wholly unreasoned order. 5 Needless to state that at least a judicial order needs to be reasoned order so that the higher Court has chance of judicial review by examining the correctness of the order. Thus, solely for the reason that the impugned order is unreasoned order revealing non application of mind, the same is quashed and set aside. The application moved by the Plaintiffs Nos.2 and 3 and their mother for bringing their names on record as legal heirs of the Defendant No.1 stands restored to file and the Trial Court, after affording proper opportunity of hearing to all the concern, shall decide the application on merits and in accordance with law. 6 Writ Petition is allowed. Rule made absolute in the above terms. (A.P. Deshpande, J)