The need for caution in passing judgment when a written statement has not been filed by the defendant, as emphasized in the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balraj Taneja & anr. v. Sunil Madan & anr., AIR 1999 SC 3381.

Dr.S.Radhakrishnan, J.:

Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant. None appears for the Respondents-original plaintiffs-Bank though served. Affidavit of service dated 12th June, 2006 has already been filed. It clearly indicates that proceedings have been duly served on the Respondents-plaintiffs and they have been informed that the Appeal will come up for final hearing on 12th June, 2006 or any day thereafter. Inspite of the same, no-one is appearing on behalf of the original Plaintiffs.

2. By this Appeal, the Appellant is challenging the Judgment and Decree dated 7th March, 2003 passed by the learned Single Judge. The learned Single Judge has by a cryptic order granted a decree as prayed on the ground that no written statement is filed and accordingly under Order VIII, Rule 5 read with Rule 10 of Code of Civil Procedure, a decree has been passed in terms of prayers (a) and (b). From the judgement and decree, we find that even the original documents have not been tendered and no evidence has been led on behalf of the Plaintiffs. Even the basic issues have not been considered in the said judgement and decree.

3. The learned counsel for the Appellant has brought to our notice the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balraj Taneja & anr. v. Sunil Madan & anr., AIR 1999 SC 3381, wherein the learned Supreme Court has considered the very issue and has observed as under:

"29. As pointed out earlier, the Court has not to act blindly upon the admission of a fact made by the defendant in his written statement nor the Court should proceed to pass judgment blindly merely because a written statement has not been filed by the defendant traversing the facts set out by the plaintiff in the plaint filed in the Court. In a case, specially where a written statement has not been filed by the defendant, the Court should be a little cautious in proceeding under Order 8, Rule 10, CPC. Before passing the judgment against the defendant it must see to it that even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated to have been admitted, a judgment could possibly be passed in favour of the plaintiff without requiring him to prove any fact mentioned in the plaint. It is a matter of Court’s satisfaction and, therefore, only on being satisfied that there is no fact which need be proved on account of deemed admission, the Court can conveniently pass a judgment against the defendant who has not filed the written statement. But if the plaint itself indicates that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the case regarding which two different versions are set out in the plaint itself, it would not be safe for the Court to pass a judgement without requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts so as to settle the factual controversy. Such a case would be covered by the expression "the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved" used in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Order 8, or the expression "may make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit" used in Rule 10 of Order 8.

43. Learned Counsel for respondent No.1 contended that the provisions of Order 20, Rule 1(2) would apply only to contested cases s it is only in those cases that "the points for determination" as mentioned in this Rule will have to be indicated, and not in a case in which the written statement had not been filed by the defendants and the facts set out in the plaint are deemed to have been admitted. We do not agree. Whether it is a case which is contested by the defendants by filing a written statement, or a case which proceeds ex parte and is ultimately decided as an ex parte case, or is a case in which the written statement is not filed and the case is decided under Order 8, Rule 10, the Court has to write a judgment which must be in conformity with the provisions of the Code or at least set out the reasoning by which the controversy is resolved.

44. An attempt was made to contend that the definition