P. Somarajan, J.

This appeal is against the decree and judgment dated 7.6.2011 in O.S.No.122 of 2006 of the Additional Sub Court, Kollam by the original defendant. The suit is one for recovery of money. The plaintiff is a grama panchayat, represented by its Secretary. The defendant, though it filed written statement, later on kept away from the court when the suit was listed for trial. It has resulted in an ex-parte decree and judgment against which this appeal is preferred.

2. Heard Smt. M. Hemalatha, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri. M.T. Sureshkumar, learned counsel for the respondent.

3. Going by the impugned judgment it is clear that the lower court has granted a decree, without going into the merits and demerits of the case and without even discussing the issues involved and the facts and evidence adduced. It has rendered a judgment stating that the plaintiff filed a proof affidavit and got marked Exts.A1 to A8. It is too dangerous and adventurous to jump into a conclusion without having a discussion with respect to the pleading and evidence adduced in a case and also without having a discussion with respect to the probative value of the document and evidence adduced. It is also not clear or discernible from the impugned judgment, how and under what circumstances the lower court was convinced that the plaintiff's case has been proved. The judgment should reflect the case advanced by both the parties.

4. It is true that Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC permits the court to pronounce a judgment against the defendant or to make such order in relation to the suit when there is failure to file written statement as required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 within the time permitted or fixed by the court. Then the question would arise whether the lower court bound to pass a decree against the defendant under Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC invariably in all cases where the defendant is set ex parte. In the present case lower court has passed an ex parte decree against the defendant without discussing the pleading and evidence involved in the suit and the law which is applicable to the fact in issue, presumably under Rule 10 of Order VIII CPC.

5. Order VIII Rule 10 is relevant as to the power of court to decree a suit when the defendant remains ex parte. Order VIII Rule 10 is extracted below for reference.

"Rule 10. Procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by Court – Where any party from whom a written statement is required under rule 1 or rule 9 fails 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, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up." (emphasis supplied)

6. Rule 10 enables the court to pronounce a judgment against the defendant or to make such orders in relation to the suit as it think fit and to draw up a decree on pronouncement of judgment, when there is failure on the part of the defendant to submit his written statement within the time permitted or fixed by the court as required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 of Order VIII CPC. Needless to say that Rule 1 stands for submission of written statement and the time specified is 30 days. Proviso enables the court to extend the time up to 90 days from the date of service of summons. Rule 9 deals with the subsequent pleadings by way of additional written statement with the leave of court other than by way of defence to set off or counter claim. Rule 10 shall not be misunderstood as the enabling provision mandating the court to pass a judgment against the defendant invariably in all cases. It is really procedural law in effect. It has to read along with Rule 5 of Order VIII CPC, which is extracted below for reference.

"Rule 5. Specific denial - [(1)] Every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the d