Abhinava Upadhya, J.

1. This is a defendant's revision by which the order of the trial court, purported to have been passed under Order 6, Rule 17 C.P.C., allowing the amendment in the plaint by order dated 8.1.2015 has been challenged. A Suit No. 967 of 2012 was filed by the respondents plaintiffs for permanent injunction. By the amendment, the suit for permanent injunction was converted into the suit for specific performance. The court below considering that the amendment is necessary for proper disposal of the suit by imposing a cost of Rs. 600/- allowed the amendment.

2. Shri Neeraj Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the revisionist submits that in view of proviso, after amendment in C.P.C. under Order 6, Rule 17 such amendment could not have been allowed after one and half years of the filing of the suit. Secondly, he submits that no reason has been given while allowing the amendment and has relied upon a decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Orissa v. Dhaniram Luhar, reported in (2004) 5 SCC 568 : AIR 2004 SC 1794 ) wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has categorically held that the reason is heartbeat of every conclusion and without the same the o