VENKATACHALIAH, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is by the State of Karnataka and is directed against the decree dated 17. 1. 1974 decreeing respondent-plaintiffs suit for recovery of Rs. 30,110. 35, together with interest and costs, said to be the price of goods supplied to the appellant-defendant.

( 2 ) THE suit stood posted to 17-1-1974 for the appearance of the defendant and settlement of issues. Appellant-defendant was served with the summonses in the suit on 3. 1. 1974. On 17. 1. 1974 defendant failed to appear and the suit was decreed. The note in the order sheet reads: "defendent absent. Placed exparte. Suit decreed as prayed for. "'

( 3 ) THIS appeal requires to be allowed on a short-point. Order VIII Rule 5 (1) C. P. C. provides that any allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically. or by necessary implication or atleast stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendent, shall be taken to be admitted. This provision deals with a case where a written statement is filed but does not "traverse" an allegation of fact either expressly or by necessary implication or does not even stated that the allegation is not admitted. Rule 5 (2), which deals with a. situation where no written statement is at all filed, provides that it shall be lawful for the court to pronounce judgement on the basis of facts contained. in the plaint. However, in both cases, where an allegation of fact is taken to be admitted by non-traverse or where, in the absence of the filing of a pleading by the defedant, court can act upon the allegations of fact contained in the plaint, the court has the discretion to call for proof of the allegations independently of the admission by non-denial.

( 4 ) RULE 10 of Order 8 provides that where any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 of order VIII CPC fail's to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him. The expression "judgment" in Rule 5 (2) and Rule 10 of Order 8 has the same connotation as it has in its definition in Section 2 (9) CPC. A "judgment" means "the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. " The power of the court to require any fact, which must otherwise be taken to have been admitted by non-traverse, to be proved otherwise than by such deemed admission, itself implies and carries with it the need for an application of the mind to all circumstances relevant to the issue including the one referred to in sub-rule (3 ). Such application of the mind must be manifest from the record of the proceedings. It may, indeed, happen in a conceivable case that if all the facts contained in the plaint are taken to be admitted, even then, the plaintiff may not be entitled, in law, to the relief he claims. The court must apply its mind and make it manifest that it has done so.

( 5 ) THE court need not write an elaborate judgment. There can, in the very nature of things, be no hard and fast rule, valid for all occasions, prescribing what a document, to be eligible to be called a 'judgment' in cases where defendant does not file a pleading and where the court proceeds to pronounce a 'judgment' on the basis of facts contained in the plaint, must contain. It must necessarily depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. However, there are certain minimal essentials inherent in the idea of a 'judgment' as defined in Section 2 (9) CPC. This must at least, it must disclose; that the Judge has applied his mind to the nature of the suit-claim and to the aspect whether, if the facts contained in the plaint are taken to be admitted, the suit-claim is entitled to succeed. This is apart from cases where, in the circumstances, a Judge feels the need to call for proof of facts independently of the admission by non-traverse. Adverting to the requirement of a "judgment' though in a some what different 12 context the Punjab High Court AIR 1966 Punjab 227, has this to sa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document