ssm sm sm IN IN IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL CIVIL CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION APPELLATE JURISDICTION FIRST FIRST FIRST APPEAL NO.3141 OF APPEAL NO.3141 OF APPEAL NO.3141 OF 2006 2006 2006 Kankavati Constructions & Ors. ...Appellants. Vs. Mr.Chetan Indravaden Mehta & Ors. ...Respondents. Mr.Dipak Y.Chitnis for the Appellants. Mr.A.S.Malvankar for the Respondents. CORAM CORAM CORAM : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. : ANOOP V. MOHTA,J. DATED DATED DATED : 2nd April, 2008 : 2nd April, 2008 : 2nd April, 2008 JUDGMENT JUDGMENT JUDGMENT:- . Heard finally by consent. . The present first Appeal is against the impugned judgment and order dated 10/02/2004 whereby the learned Trial Court Judge by invoking the provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, (for short, "CPC") granted the decree in terms of prayer clauses (a), (b) and (c) for want of written Statement. 2. Admittedly, there are no reasioning given whatsoever on the merit of the matter, merely because written statement was not filed though opportunities were given to the Appellant. The learned Trial Court ( 2 ) Judge, has passed the following unreasoned order:- . "P.C.:- Suit decreed in terms of prayers (a), (b) and (c) together with cost, however, before implementing prayer (c) of the plaint, the plaintiffs are directed to intimate the defendants at least 3 days in advance about today’s order. Decree to be drawn accordingly. R & Ps to be sent to R/Dept." . The provisions of Order 8 Rule 10 though invoked rightly still it is necessary for the court to consider the merit of the matter by taking note of the averments, as well as, the documents placed on record specially when in such matters where there is no written statement and nothing else to accept the case of the plaintiff as it is. 3. It has been held that while disposing of the suit on merit, it is necessary for the Court to give reasoning on the issues involved before granting the reliefs as claimed. Admittedly, all these things are missing in the present matter. 4. In totality, therefore, in view of the judgment of this Court in Principal Collector of Customs & Anr. Principal Collector of Customs & Anr. Principal Collector of Customs & Anr. ( 3 ) Vs. Vs. Vs. M/s. Capital Colour Lab. Pvt. Ltd. & anr. M/s. Capital Colour Lab. Pvt. Ltd. & anr. M/s. Capital Colour Lab. Pvt. Ltd. & anr. 2007(6) 2007(6) 2007(6) Mh.L.J. 225 Mh.L.J. 225 Mh.L.J. 225, and for the reasons recorded in the impugned Judgment and decree dated 10/02/2004 is quashed and set aside. The suit is restored to file. The suit is of the year 2001, the hearing of the same is expedited. The Written Statement of the original Defendants - Plaintiffs be taken on record. However, this order is subject to costs of Rs.10,000/- tobe paid within a period of two weeks as a condition precedent. 5. The Appeal is allowed. . No costs (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.)