The trial court's failure to state its findings or decision with reasons on the issues framed, violating Order 20 Rule 5 CPC, renders the judgment and decree void.

( 1 ) THE appellant/defendant has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the ex parte judgement and decree dated 16-1-89, passed in Civil Suit No. 12a/1984 by Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior.

( 2 ) MATERIAL facts giving rise to this appeal are thus : appellant is the husband of respondent No. 1, and the father of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Because of non-cordial relationship between the appellant and respondent No. l, the appellant started living separately, hence, the respondents instituted a suit claiming monthly maintenance to them and the amount of expenses for the marriage of the daughter; Ku. Rajni. The defendant filed written statement and contested the suit. The trial Court on the pleadings of parties, where they were at real and substantial difference, framed as many as six issues. During trial on 18-2-87, the defendant could not appear at the time of call at 12. 30 p. m. , hence, the Court ordered to proceed ex parte. After about an hour, the defendant appeared and filed an application to set aside the ex parte order passed against him, but the Court dismissed the application in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993, as the entire hearing was completed and the case was adjourned for pronouncing the judgement. On it, the defendant on 11-8-1987, prior to the date of pronouncing the judgement, moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C. P. C. for bringing subsequent events on record which was also dismissed on 20-12-88. Again an application under O. 6, R. 17, read with Section 151, C. P. C. was filed on 23-12-88 by the appellant/defendant, which was also dismissed on 17-1-1989 in view of the law laid down in Arjun Singh's case (supra ). Thereafter, on the same day, the trial Court pronounced the judgement directing the appellant to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/- per month to the respondent No. l, the wife, Rs. 350/- per month to the children and Rs. 10000/- for meeting the expenses for the marriage of Ku. Rajni. It is this decree, which has been challenged in appeal.

( 3 ) SHRI B. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection that this appeal cannot proceed, as the defendant/appellant has also filed an application under O. 9, R. 13, CPC, to set aside the ex parte decree, which is still pending. To this, Shri A. M. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant, stated that the appellant will not press the application and will get it dismissed, and submitted that in view of this statement, the appeal be heard; accordingly, the appeal is heard on merits.

( 4 ) SHRI Naik placing reliance on AIR 1985 SC 736, M/s. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v. Gustavo Ranato da Cruz Pinto contended that the trial Court acted illegally in not pronouncing the judgement according to the mandate of Order 20, Rule 5, C. P. C. , as it has not stated its findings or decision, with reasons therefor on the issues framed, which was necessary even when the case proceeded ex parte against the defendant. It was also submitted that the trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in not considering the application under O. 6, R. 17, CPC, as the proposed amendments were based on subsequent events, and thus acted illegally in rejecting the said application relying on Arjun Singh's case (supra), which does not prohibit the consideration of an application for amendment in a suit, where the case is reserved for judgement. Learned counsel pressed into service a decision of this Court in Badri Prasad Soni v. S. Kripal Singh, AIR 1981 MP 228.

( 5 ) SHRI Chouhan supported the judgement of the trial Court and contended that in ex parte cases judgement remains cryptic and merely in the absence of an elaborate discussion, it cannot be said that the Court did not apply its judicial mind. Moreover, the conduct of the appellant is such that he is adopting delaying tactics, becaus