The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a reasoned judgment, including in ex parte cases, as per the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure and relevant case law.

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by D.MURUGESAN, J.)

1. By an ex parte judgment dated 8.7.2009 made in O.S.No.16 of 2005, the learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court No.V, Coimbatore at Tiruppur has ordered as follows:-

"Suit for directing the defendant to pay the plaintiff the sum of Rs.1,12,25,770.00 with future interest from the date of suit till realisation at 18% per annum of Rs.85,72,500/-and for the costs of the suit.

PW1 present from 10.30 A.M. till 5.30 P.M. The defendant was called and found absent. The counsel for the defendant also is not present. The evidence on record perused. Claims proved. Suit decreed with costs for Rs.1,12,25,770.00 with future interest on Rs.85,72,500.00 at 18% from the date of the plaint till realisation. Pronounced by me in the open court, this the 18th day of July, 2009."

2. The question arises in this civil miscellaneous appeal is as to whether the aforesaid judgment could be termed to be a "judgment" in terms of Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure.

3. The following few facts are necessary for the disposal of this civil miscellaneous appeal. The respondent in this appeal is the plaintiff and the appellant is the defendant in O.S.No.16 of 2005 and they are referred to as the plaintiff and the defendant in this judgment. The plaintiff instituted the said suit for the relief as has been stated in the above judgment of the Court below. The defendant filed the written statement dated 16.8.2001. After filing the written statement, the defendant did not appear and was absent. Issues were framed on 24.2.2005 and thereafter the evidence was recorded, perused and the judgment was rendered on 8.7.2009. A decree was also passed on the basis of that judgment. The defendant filed I.A.No.1776 of 2009 to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree and for a consequential direction for hearing of the suit on merits. That application was resisted by the plaintiff on various grounds. Subsequently, while that interlocutory application was pending, the plaintiff filed I.A.No.2346 of 2009 seeking for a direction to receive the additional counter affidavit. The I.A.No.1776 of 2009 filed by the defendant was taken up by the learned Judge and the same was dismissed by the order dated 26.8.2010. In order to dismiss the said application, the learned Judge found that though the issues were framed as early as on 24.2.2005 and the case was listed for trial from 24.3.2005 and that the cross examination of P.W.1 was posted from 3.4.2009, the defendant did not cross examine P.W.1 in spite of several adjournments. The learned Judge also found that the defendant did not give any explanation for its failure to cross examine P.W.1 for a long period and therefore the defendant id not make out any grounds to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree. The said order is questioned in this civil miscellaneous appeal.

4. When the civil miscellaneous appeal was heard, the respective learned counsel for the plaintiff and the defendant had advanced their arguments on the justification or otherwise to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree on the basis of the averments made in the affidavits filed in support of the applications to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree and the counter affidavit. Nevertheless, as it is frequently noticed by this Court that whenever a judgment is rendered on the ground that the defendant did not appear, uniform format is being adopted by the Judicial Officers of the State to pass the judgment of the kind, which we have referred to above. Hence, we are inclined to consider the question as to whether such a judgment and the decree drawn on the basis of the said judgment could be sustained in the eye of law, particularly, within the definition of Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure and within Section 33 read with Order XX of the Code of Civil Procedure relating to a judgment and decree.

5. We have heard the respective learned counsel on either sid