Order XX Rule 4(1) relates to the judgment of a Court of Small Causes. Inasmuch as the said judgment does not require more than the points for determination and that the decision thereon, a judgment of a Court of Small Causes shall not fall under Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the judgment of other Court is concerned, in terms of Order XX Rule 4(2), it shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision and therefore it shall fall under Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure and in that sense, all the ingredients contained in Order XX Rule 4(2) must be available in that judgment. This is more so in view of the provisions of Order XX Rule 5 relating to the duty of the Court to state its reasons on each issue.

ORDER :

(Prayer: Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and final order, dated 29.11.2011 in I.A.No.326 of 2008 in O.S.No.179 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Trichy.

Petition filed under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, against the fair and final order, dated 06.09.2012 in I.A.No.4 of 2010 in I.A.No.326 of 2008 in O.S.No.179 of 2004 on the file of the learned Principal District Judge, Trichy.)

1. C.R.P.(MD) No.1303 of 2012 has been filed against the dismissal of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 1305 days in filing the petition to set aside the exparte decree.

2. C.R.P.(MD) No.871 of 2013 has been filed against the order passed by the Court below dismissing the application, filed under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, for non-prosecution.

3. The order to be passed in C.R.P.(MD) No.1303 of 2012, will have a bearing in C.R.P.(MD) No.871 of 2013 and therefore, C.R.P. (MD) No.1303 of 2012 is taken up first for consideration.

4. The petitioner is the defendant in the suit filed by the respondent seeking for the relief of specific performance.

5. The suit filed by the respondent/plaintiff was decreed exparte by Judgment and Decree, dated 02.02.2005. An application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, to condone the delay of 1350 days in setting aside the exparte decree. The reasons assigned for the said delay is that the son of the petitioner was following up the case and the petitioner was suffering from diabetes and loss of eye-sight and the son of the petitioner did not properly follow up the case later, as a result of which the suit was decreed exparte. It came to be known only on 21.10.2008 and therefore, the petition has been filed with a delay. The Court below dismissed the condone delay application on the ground that no sufficient reasons were assigned for the inordinate delay and that subsequent to the exparte decree, the sale deed has been executed in favour of the respondent/defendant and the possession of the property has also been taken. Therefore, the Court below proceeded to dismiss the application.

6. Mrs. N. Krishnaveni, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the Court below did not take into consideration certain vital aspects before passing the exparte decree. The learned Senior Counsel brought to the notice of this Court the averments made in the plaint. In one portion of the plaint, it was averred that after the agreement of sale was entered into on 19.03.2002, the advance of Rs.2,00,000/- was paid on the same day and a sum of Rs.4,50,000/- has been given to one Ashok Kumar Chordia, who was the earlier agreement holder to the property and the plaintiff was ready and willing to pay the balance sale consideration and the defendant was evading to execute the sale deed. In the other portion of the plaint, it is seen that the plaintiff specifically pleads that a sum of Rs.7,00,000/- is the balance sale consideration that has to be given out of the total sale consideration of Rs.9,00,000/-. This is even more clear in the relevant portion wherein the alternate relief that has been sought for by the plaintiff is only for the refund of a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- paid as advance with interest.

7. The learned Senior Counsel thereafter brought to the notice of this Court the Judgment and Decree passed by the learned Principal District Judge, Trichy. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that the Judgment does not satisfy the requirements of Order XX Rules 4 and 5 of C.P.C., and there are absolutely no reasons given in the Judgment and it suffers from non-application of mind and the Court below has not even stated in the Judgment as to what is the balance amount that has to be paid by the plaintiff.

8. The learned Senior Counsel submitted that substantial right over the property is involved and therefore, the Court below ought to have taken into co