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. 51 OF 2008 NO. 51 OF 2008 NO. 51 OF 2008 IN IN IN SUIT SUIT SUIT NO.4972 OF 1999 NO.4972 OF 1999 NO.4972 OF 1999 Suresh Shantaram Mohite ...Appellant. Vs. Shantaram Shankar Mohite ...Respondent. Mr.S.A.Tawate i/by Mr.B.A.Bhakad for the Appellant. Mr.R.T.Yadav for 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 : 13TH MARCH, 2008 : 13TH MARCH, 2008 : 13TH MARCH, 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. 2. By consent, the Appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3. We have perused the records as well as the impugned order dated 6th September, 2001 which reads as under:- ( 2 ) . "Heard the Learned Counsel for the Plaintiffs on 19/07/2000. The Defendants was absent in person. He was granted one month time to file Written Statement. No W/S has been filed. In the absence of W/S taking averments made in the Plaint as admitted. The suit is decreed in terms of Prayer Clauses (a) to (c) and (f)." 4. The above suit is for declaration as trespassers and for possession and for mesne profit. 5. The learned counsel appearing for the Appellant brought to our notice the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court Balraj Taneja & anr. Vs. Sunil Madan & Balraj Taneja & anr. Vs. Sunil Madan & Balraj Taneja & anr. Vs. Sunil Madan & Anr. Anr. Anr. (1999) 8 S.C.C. 396, (1999) 8 S.C.C. 396, (1999) 8 S.C.C. 396, 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. 40. 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 ( 3 ) 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 taking into consideration and the decree passed by the Single Judge was affirmed. 41. There is yet another infirmity in the case which relates to the "judgment" passed by the Single Judge and upheld by the Division Bench. 42. "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 ( 4 ) in the judgment." 6. The learned Counsel for the Appellant based on the Judgment, submits that the learned Single Judge ought not to have decreed the suit in the manner in which it has been done. Even the learned counsel for the Respondent is unable to dispute the same, since in the judgment of the learned single judge there is no mention of any concise statement of the case, the points of determination and the reasons for the decision. Under these circumstances, the aforesaid judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 6th September, 2001 cannot be sustained in law. Accordingly, the said judgment and order is set aside. The suit is restored to file. The Appellant shall file the Written Statement in the above suit within a period of four weeks from today. Both the parties to complete the discovery and inspection within a period of four weeks thereafter. 7. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case specially when the above suit is of the year 1999 and the age of the original Plaintiff is also over 65 years, we expedite the hearing of the suit. 8. After completion of the discovery and inspection, ( 5 ) 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, in the above terms. 9. Without prejudice to the above, both the parties have agreed to adopt mediation proceedings to find an amicable solution and they have consented to appear before Mr.Anand Grover, learned Advocate who has also agreed to mediate in the above matter. (ANOOP (ANOOP (ANOOP V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) V. MOHTA, J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.) (DR.S.RADHAKRISHNAN,J.)