Pradeep Nandrajog, J.

1. CM No.14539/2013 filed by the first respondent who was the writ petitioner of W.P.(C) No.1698/2010, invoking the provisions of Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and praying that it be permitted to amend the writ petition has been allowed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated May 20, 2014. The appellants in the three appeals who were respondents No.3 to 5 in the writ petition have filed the three captioned appeals laying a challenge to the order dated May 20, 2014.

2. The principal grievance of the appellants is that the impugned order is perfunctory and does not give the reasons for the conclusions arrived at. The conclusion arrived is that the amendment sought for amplify the averments already made in the writ petition and also took into account subsequent facts and that the cause of action embedded in the tripartite agreement dated October 28, 2000 is not altered. The other conclusion is that a fresh writ petition would be maintainable with reference to the pleadings sought to be incorporated, post amendment, to the writ petition. On facts, appellants contended that a new cause of action was sought to be introduced by