( 1 ) THIS revision petition is filed under S. 18 of the Mysore Small Cause courts Act, 1964, against the judgment and decree dt. "l8-ll-1972 in SC. No. 162/1972 passed by 'the Principal Munsiff, Bellary. The suit was filed for recovery of Rs. 393 towards principal and interest due on account of the business carried on by the plaintiff with the defendant on 14-2-1972. The order sheet dt. 18-11-1972 reads as follows : plaintiff by Sri M. S. Defendant Ex parte. For further proceedings. From the evidence and documents Ex. P1 to Ex. P3 prima fade case is made out. Hence, the suit is decreed for Rs. 360 being the prin- cipal and interest at 12 per cent per annum from 26-8-1972 till the date of filing of the suit and thereafter at 6 per cent p. a. till the date of realisation ex-parte decree signed. ( 2 ) THIS revision petition was heard on 9-4-1973 on which date Mr. S. G. Bhagavan, learned Counsel forr petitioner, was absent and the revision petition was dismissed. The learned Counsel for petitioner has filed an application I. A. No. II praying that the order passed on 9-4-1973 may be set aside and the revision petition be re-heard for the reasons stated in the Memorandum of Facts accompanying the application. Mr. T. S. Ramaehandra, learned Counsel for respondent, has no objection, in view of the facts stated therein, for the order which has already been passed being set aside and the case being re-heard. The decision in D. V. Shindagi y. Saraswathibai (1968) 2 Mys. L. J. 200. relied on by the petitioner also supports his contention accordingly, the order dt. 9-4-1973 is set aside. The learned Counsel were heard again. It is the contention of the petitioner that the order passed by the lower Court is not in compliance with Or. 20, R. 4 CPC and that since it is not according to law, it is liable to be interfered with under S. 18 of the small Cause Courts Act. Next, he relied on an unreported decision of this Court in CRP. No. H97/1965 CRP. 1197/65. decided on 21-2-1967. In that case four points were set down by the learned Munsiff for his determination. His findings were in the following terms : point No. 1-In the affirmative. Point No. 2-In the affirmative. Next, he relied on an unreported decision of this Court in CRP. No. H97/1965 CRP. 1197/65. decided on 21-2-1967. In that case four points were set down by the learned Munsiff for his determination. His findings were in the following terms : point No. 1-In the affirmative. Point No. 2-In the affirmative. Point No. 3-1st part in the negative; 2nd part does not arise. Point No. 4-In the negative. ( 3 ) ACCORDINGLY the learned Munsiff passed a decree in favour of the plaintiff, which was challenged in the revision petition. This Court set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court and remanded the case for fresh disposal and observed as follows : from a perusal of the oral and documentary evidence produced in the case, I must say that the decision of the learned Munsiff is too cryptic and not intelligible. The provisions of Or. 20, R. 4 (l) CPC must be read consistently with the provisions of Sec. 18 of the Mysore small Cause Courts Act. This is the way in which the provision has been read in the several decisions that I have referred to above. Under s. 18 of the Small Cause Courts Act, the High Court has been invested with the powers to call for the records of the case for the purpose of satisfying itself that the decree or order made by the Court of Small causes is in accordance with law. To enable the High Court to do so, it is necessary that the Small Cause Court should ordinarily support its decision by reasons so that the revisional Court as also the parties interested in the case may satisfy themselves that the decision is in accordance with law. It may be that in simple cases where the contest is not of a complicated character the provisions of Or. 20, R. 4 (l) permit the decision being given without the reasons in support of the decision being set out. The test as to whether it is , necessary for the small Cause Court to set out the reasons for its decision is whether it is intelligible or not. It appears to be immaterial whether the question involved is one of fact or one of law. In either case the decision of the Small Cause Court must be intelligible on the face of it. It appears to be immaterial whether the question involved is one of fact or one of law. In either case the decision of the Small Cause Court must be intelligible on the face of it. In many cases it may be necessary that reasons should be set out in support of the decision of the Small Cause Court. It must also be noted that ordinarily the decision of a Court must be supported by reasons. Or. 20,r. 4 (l) is only an exception. As mentioned already it does not say that the Small Cause Court shall not give reasons but only need not give reasons. It implies that ordinarily reasons should be given. Applying those principles, it is necessary to set aside the judgment of the trial Court. " ( 4 ) MR. S. G. Bhagavan relied on a decision in Dayalal Meghji v, repaka Venkayya (1963) 1 An. W. R. 111. In that case, the judgment of the Small Causes court's Judge read as follows : defendants called absent. Mr. M. S. requests time. Time refused. Mr. M. 's. reports no instructions. The witnesses already examined and the documents marked A1 to A15 and B1 and B. 2, prove the suit claim. Defendants are set ex-parte. Suit is decreed with costs. Pronounced by me in open Court this the 7th day of June 1959. It was held that the judgment of the Small Causes Court must be intelligible and must ex-facie convey that the Judge had applied his mind thereto and that it must be such as to enable the superior Court exercising revisional powers to be satisfied that it was in accordance with law. Since the judgment left room for doubt whether the Judge applied his mind to the evidence placed before him, it was set aside and the suit was remanded for fresh disposal. The following observations of Reilly, J. in (1928) 55 mlj. 671 , 673 were refered to with appoval : but, when we are interpreting Rule 4 of Order 20, we ought not in my opinion to divorce that rule from general principles which are applicable to all Courts. It is a principle of our administration of justice that Courts should conduct their work in public. 671 , 673 were refered to with appoval : but, when we are interpreting Rule 4 of Order 20, we ought not in my opinion to divorce that rule from general principles which are applicable to all Courts. It is a principle of our administration of justice that Courts should conduct their work in public. The object of that is not that the Courts or the Judges sitting in them should be a show to the public, but that the public should be assured that decisions are not arbitrary. Now neither the public nor the parties concerned can be assured that decisions are no arbitrary, unless they are made intelligible 'to those who follow, them and, where revisional powers are given to superior Courts, the record is made intelligible to those revisional Courts. And every conscientious Judge must wish to make his decision intelligible, not only out of consideration for the parties whose rights and claims are laid before him for decision between them, but out of a sense of duty to the public, whose servant he is. Remembering that principle, is there anything against it in Rule 4 of Dr. 20 of the Code as it stands? I think, if we examine that rule, we shall find indication in it that the principle is to be maintained even in the judgments of Small Cause Courts. The rule does not provide that a judge of a Small Cause Court can dispose of a suit by saying merely 'judgment for the plaintiff' or 'judgment for the defendant. It is laid down that his judgment must contain the points for determination and the decision thereon. What is the object of that? Obviously, to make his judgment intelligible to those who are interested in and to those who have to deal with it. And that fits in with S. 25 of the Provincial small Cause Courts Act. Under that section the High Court is given the power of revising the decrees or orders of Small Cause Courts and it may call for the record of the proceedings of such a Court in order to satisfy itself that the decree or order made in any case is according to law. . That provision is a strong indication to my mind that there is' no intention that Small Cause Court Judges any more than other judges should be allowed to deliver unintelligible judgments. . That provision is a strong indication to my mind that there is' no intention that Small Cause Court Judges any more than other judges should be allowed to deliver unintelligible judgments. " ( 5 ) IN the present case also it is not possible to say that the learned judge had applied his mind to the facts of the case before decreeing the suit. The defendant's absence could not absolve the learned Judge of his duty to apply his mind to the relevant allegations made by the plaintiff in support of his case and to arrive at a decision whether on the evidence on record he was entitled to succeed. The judgment and decree of the lower court is therefore set aside and the revision petition is allowed, and the suit is remanded to the lower Court for fresh disposal according to law. Parties will bear their own costs in this revision petition. --- *** --- .