Thottathil B. Radhakrishnan, J.

1. This appeal is against an ex parte decree for specific performance of a contract for sale of immovable property.

2. Appellant had filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree. That was decided against her. She, therefore, filed an appeal to this Court against the order refusing to set aside the ex parte decree. That appeal was allowed to be withdrawn without prejudice to the prosecution of this appeal challenging the decree on merits. So much so, the examination of this appeal would be based on the merits of the substance of the litigation and also from the angle whether the court below could have decided the case without the defendant delivering defence. See for support, Bhanu Kumar v. Archana Kumar [2005 (1) KLT 456 (SC)], Ajith Mathews v. Sheelamma Thomas [2011 (2) KLT 225 (DB)] and Haridas v. Madhavi Amma [1987 (2) KLT 701].

3. Plaintiff sued for specific performance of Ext.A1 contract for sale, the recitals of which show that the proposed sale is against part consideration. Not a penny was left as balance consideration due at the sale. Nor was any payment made even on the date of the agreement. Consideration for the proposed sale is showed to have been accounted as against amounts received by the defendant during a spread out span of time.

4. No written statement was filed. One material we have before us on behalf of the appellant is a certificate that she is a deaf and dumb woman. It is stated that she was working in the lowest rank as a Class IV employee in the Government Secretariat. Description of the parties in Ext.A1, indicates that respondent/plaintiff is a retired Professor and that the parties are neighbours.

5. With the aforesaid, we looked into the impugned ex parte judgment, reminding ourselves that it is a judgment delivered in a suit for specific performance of a contract for sale, to which the provisions of the Specific Relief Act, 1963, for short, "the Act" apply, also enjoining exercise of judicial discretion in granting such decrees.

6. The impugned judgment reads as follows :

"Suit is for specific performance of contract. Defendant remained absent and is set ex parte. Plaintiff filed affidavit to prove the case. Marked Exts. A1 to A9. Ext.A1 is the agreement of sale of the plaint schedule property. Plaintiff affirmed that the sale consideration was given. I am satisfied that plaintiff is entitled for the decree prayed. In the result it is decreed that plaintiff is entitled for specific performance of contract of sale in respect of plaint schedule property and for costs of the suit from the defendant. Defendant is directed to execute and register sale deed in favour of the plaintiff within 4 months from the date of decree at the costs of the plaintiff. If the defendant did not comply the same, plaintiff can get executed and registered the sale deed through court."

7. The reasoning process in the aforequoted impugned judgment is reflected in the second paragraph thereof. The fact that the defendant remained ex parte is recorded. The judgment proceeds to record that the plaintiff has filed an affidavit to prove the case. The marking of documents is recorded. Ext. A1 is noted as the agreement for sale. All that the learned trial Judge has thereafter noted is that the plaintiff affirmed that sale consideration was given. This reflects that the reasoning process discloses the consideration of the fact that the plaintiff affirmed that sale consideration was given. The judgment then proceeds to say that the learned Judge is satisfied that plaintiff is entitled for the decree prayed for. That sentence in the impugned judgment is only the recording of the satisfaction in that regard, however without stating any reasons whatsoever. This assumes importance because Section 20(1) of the Act enjoins that the jurisdiction to decree specific performance is discretionary, and the court is not bound to grant such relief merely because it is lawful to do so; but the discretion