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 ORDINARY ORDINARY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL APPEAL APPEAL NO.796 OF 2007 NO.796 OF 2007 NO.796 OF 2007 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.713 OF 1986 NO.713 OF 1986 NO.713 OF 1986 Teknik Plant and Machinery Manufacturing Co.Pvt.Ltd. ...Appellant. Vs. The East India Hotels Ltd. ...Respondent. Mr.K.K.Waghmare for the Appellant. Mr.Arvind Joshi i/by M/s. Mulla and Mulla for the Respondent. CORAM CORAM CORAM : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN : DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN & ANOOP ANOOP ANOOP V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. V. MOHTA, JJ. DATED DATED DATED : 29TH FEBRUARY, 2008 : 29TH FEBRUARY, 2008 : 29TH FEBRUARY, 2008. P.C. P.C. P.C. . Heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned counsel for the Respondent. Appeal is admitted. The learned counsel for the Respondent waives service. By consent taken up for final hearing. 2. By this Appeal, the Appellant is challenging the Judgment and Order dated 27th January, 2006 whereby the learned Single Judge had decreed the suit mainly on the ground of non-filing of Written Statement. Perused the said Judgment and order, and the records of the Suit Proceedings. ( 2 ) 3. The learned counsel for the Appellant has brought to our notice the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Mr.Balraj Taneja Vs. Sunil Madan, AIR 1999 S.C. Mr.Balraj Taneja Vs. Sunil Madan, AIR 1999 S.C. Mr.Balraj Taneja Vs. Sunil Madan, AIR 1999 S.C. 3381 3381 3381 wherein the Supreme Court has observed as under:- "27. In view of the above, it is clear that the Court, at no stage, can act blindly or mechanically. While enabling the Court to pronounce judgment in a situation where no written statement is filed by the defendant, the Court has also been given the discretion to pass such order as it may think fit as an alternative. This is also the position under Order 8, Rule 10, CPC where the Court can either pronounce judgment against the defendant or pass such order as it may think fit. 39. Unfortunately, the High Court did not consider this fact and proceeded almost blindly to pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff merely because written statement had not been filed in the case. Learned single Judge, who passed the decree, did not consider any fact other than the conduct of the defendants in seeking adjournments of the case for purposes of filing written statement. So also, the Division Bench did not consider any fact other than the fact that the defendants had been trying to prolong the proceedings by seeking adjournments, and that too, by changing their counsel. The Division Bench also took into consideration the fact that the appeal filed by the defendants against the decree passed by the single Judge was beyond time which again indicated their negligence. No other fact was taken into consideration and the decree passed by the single Judge was affirmed. ( 3 ) 40. There is yet another infirmity in the case which relates to the "judgment" passed by the single Judge and upheld by the Division Bench. 40A. "Judgment" as defined in Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds for a decree or order. What a judgment should contain is indicated in Order 20, rule 4(2) which says that a judgment: . "shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision." . It should be a self-contained document from which it should appear as to what were the facts of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the Court and in what manner. The process of reasoning by which the Court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment" 4. Admittedly in this case the learned Single Judge apart from setting out some facts, no points for determination have been formulated and there are no reasons given for the conclusion. Under these circumstances, ex-facie the above judgment and order cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the said Judgment and order is set aside. The suit is restored to file. The Defendant shall file the Written Statement within a period of four weeks from today. The parties to complete the discovery and inspection ( 4 ) within a period of four weeks thereafter. 5. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case specially when the above suit is of the year 1986, we expedite the hearing of the suit and grant liberty to the parties to move the learned Single Judge for fixing the date of early hearing of the Suit. The Appeal stands disposed off. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)