1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION APPEAL NO.281 OF 2007 IN SUIT NO.1453 OF 1993 M/s Popular Construction ...Appellants v/s Canning Mitra Phoenix Pvt.Ltd. ...Respondents Mr Rishabh Shah i/b Ms Bhadra Dalal for Appellants. Ms Soumya Srikrishna i/b M/s Kanga and Co. for Respondents. CORAM : D.K. DESHMUKH AND SMT R.P. SONDURBALDOTA JJ. DATE : 16TH JUNE 2010. 2 P.C. :- 1] Admitted facts are that the respondents filed civil suit No.1453 of 1993 claiming money decree against the present appellants. Though the appellants  defendants were served, admittedly no written statement was filed. Therefore, the suit came before the Court for ex-parte decree. On 23 rd August, 2006 following order was made :- 1.The suit is undefended against the defendants. The averments made in the plaint remained uncontroverted and they are supported by the documents which are filed today by the plaintiffs. In view thereof, the suit is to be decreed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Decree be drawn in terms of prayer clauses (a) and (b). 2. Court fee, if any, be refunded as per Rules. 3 Relying on the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Meditronics Corporation of India and others v/s Salima A. Rais, reported in 2006(6) Bom.C.R. 72, it is submitted by the learned counsel appearing for appellants that even in the absence of written statement, for passing a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 of C.P.C., the Court has to write a judgment which must be in conformity with the provisions of the C.P.C. And at least should set out the reasoning by which the controversy is resolved. Perusal of the record and order passed by the learned Single Judge passing the decree shows that it cannot be said that it amounts to judgment within the meaning of C.P.C. We have heard the learned counsel for plaintiff  decree holder. In our opinion, in view of the law laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in its judgment in Meditronics Corporation of India s case referred to above, the appeal will have to be allowed. There is one more circumstance to be taken into consideration viz. There is an order made by the Court in suit No.1453 of 1993 on 4 20 th July 1998 that suit No.1334 of 1990 was to be heard with suit No.1453 of 1993. That suit remains still pending and suit No.1453 of 1993 has been decided. But the fact remains that the defendants have not been able to give any convincing reason why they failed to file written statement. There is definite failure on the part of the defendants to file written statement which resulted in Court passing ex-parte decree. We have to set aside the order because the order was defective. The learned counsel appearing for defendants states that the defendants are wiling to file written statement within a period of four weeks, but in our opinion, cost will have to be imposed on the defendants for permitting the defendants to file written statement. In our opinion, therefore, following order would meet the ends of justice. 2] The appeal is allowed, order dated 23 rd August 2006 impugned in the apeal passed in suit No.1453 of 1993 is set aside. The Office is directed to place this suit and suit No.1334 of 5 1990 together in compliance with the order referred to above. The defendants are permitted to file written statement within a period of four weeks from today subject to payment of cost of Rs. 10,000/- to the plaintiffs. Appeal is disposed off. Parties to act on the copy of this order duly authenticated by Associate / Private Secretary of this Court. Certified copy expedited. (JUSTICE D.K. DESHMUKH) (JUSTICE SMT R.P. SONDURBALDOTA)