N. R. KUDOOR, J. ( 1 ) THIS revision petition is listed for admission to this day. With the consent of the learned Advocates appearing for both parties, the revision petition is deemed to have been set down for final hearing and the petition is heard on merits. ( 2 ) THE defendant in SC No. 3564 of 1981 on the file of the Chief Judge, Court of small causes, Bangalore City, has presented this revision against the order dt. 10-2-1982 decreeing the suit brought by the plaintiff (respondent herein) as prayed for with future interest at 6% per annum from the date of suit, till the date of realisation. ( 3 ) THE plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant for the recovery of a sum of Rs. 8,250 claiming to be the arrears of rent with costs and current interest. The defendant did not file his written statement although the case was posted for filing the written statement of the defendant finally on 10-2-1982. Since the defendant did not file his written statement, the learned Judge decreed the suit as under :"ws not filed though the case is posted finally to this date. Defendant and counsel absent. Defendant placed ex parte under Or. 8, R. 5 (2) of CPC. The suit of the plaintiff is decreed against the defendant as prayed for in the plaint allowing future interest on rs. 8,250 at 6% p. a. from the date of suit till the date of realisation". Tt is this order of the learned Chief judge, Court of small causes. Bangalore city, that is sought to be challenged in this revision. ( 4 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner contended inter alia that the order passed by the learned Chief Judge decreeing the quit at prayed for by the plaintiff without recording evidence is erroneous, even if the suit was decreed in exercise of the power conferred under Or. VIII, R 5 (2) of CPC. Or. VIII, R. 10 does not apply to she facts of the case and in any event, the order which is a judgment in terms of Or, VIII, R. 5 (2) of CPC is not in conformity with Or. XX, R, 4 of cpc. On these grounds he maintained that the lmpugned order is liable to be set aside. Or. VIII, R. 10 does not apply to she facts of the case and in any event, the order which is a judgment in terms of Or, VIII, R. 5 (2) of CPC is not in conformity with Or. XX, R, 4 of cpc. On these grounds he maintained that the lmpugned order is liable to be set aside. in support of these contentions, he placed reliance on the utreported decision of this Court in Sampa Pujari v. Ramamba l. N. Rai (1 ). . ( 5 ) BEFORE adverting to the above contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is usefal to refer to the relevant provisions of the CPC. ( 6 ) JUDGMENT' as defined under S. 2 (9) means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. Or, VIII of the CPC to the extent material reads : r. 31 (I) : "the defendant shall or before the 1st hearing or within such time as the Court may permit present a written statement of his defeuce". R. 5 (1) : "every allegation of fact in the plaint if not denied specifically or by necessary implication, or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant shall be taken to be admitted except as gainst a person under disability: providided that the Court, may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission". R, 5 (2) : "where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the Court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved". R. 5 (3) : x x x r. 5 (4) : "whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and such decree shall boar the date on which the judgment was pronounced". R. 5 (3) : x x x r. 5 (4) : "whenever a judgment is pronounced under this rule, a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and such decree shall boar the date on which the judgment was pronounced". R. 9 :"no pleading subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a setoff or counter-claim shall be presented except by the leave of the Court and upon such lerms as the Court thinks fit but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same". (Emphasis supplied ). R, 10 : "where any party from whom a written statement is required under r. 1 or R, 9, fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the court as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up". Or. XX, R, 4 : (1) Judgment of a court of small causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon. (2) Judgments of other Courts shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision. ( 7 ) OR. VIII, R. 1 (1) stipulates that the defendant shall. , at or before the 1st hearing or within such time as the Court may permit, present a written statement of his defence. This would show that the defendant Is required to present a written statement setting out his defence. R. 9 sets out the circumstances when the Court may require from any of the parties, a written statement or additional written statement to be filed and fix a time for presenting the same. R. 10 provides for pronouncing a judgment against a party from whom a written statement is required under R. 1 or R. 9, when he fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, or making such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up. Cl. Cl. (1) of R. 5 provides that every allegation of fact in the plaint if not denied specifically or by necessary implication or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability. The proviso to Cl. (1) provides that the Court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. It is obvious that Cl. (1) provides for a situation, to take the allegation of fact con. tained in the plaint being admitted, where a defendant having filed a written statement or pleading fails to deny the allegation of fact made in the plaint either specifically or by necessary implication or stating to be not admitted, of course, subject to the discretion of the Court requiring any of the facts so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. Cl. (2) of R. 5 declares that where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the Court to pronounce a judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under disability. Here again, a discretion is left with the Court requiring any of the facts stated in the plaint to be proved notwithstanding the fact of the defendant's failure to file a pleading, ( 8 ) THE order under challenge would show that the defendant did not present his written statement on 10 2-1982, although the cass was posted for presenting his written statement finally on that day. The defendant and his counsel both were absent. The learned Chief Judge decreed the suit, placing the defendant ex parts under or. VIII, R, 5 (2) of CPC as prayed for in the plaint with future interest at 6% p. a. from the date of the suit till the date of realisation. No evidence was recorded before decreeing the suit. This order when tested in the light of the aforesaid provisions, in my opinion, squarely falls within the ambit of R. 10, rather than R, 5 (2) of or. No evidence was recorded before decreeing the suit. This order when tested in the light of the aforesaid provisions, in my opinion, squarely falls within the ambit of R. 10, rather than R, 5 (2) of or. VIII, because under R. 5 (2), the Court is not bound to pronounce a judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint where the defendant has not filed a pleading but merely declares that if the judgment is so pronounced, it shall be lawful whereas under R. 10, if the party who is required to file a written statement either under R, 1 or R 9, fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the Court has no discretion but to pronounce a judgment against such party or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. Since in the instant case, the defendant had failed to present his written statement which he was required to present under r. 1 in spite of giving ample opportunities, the order passed in the suit against him attracts the provisions of R. 10. ( 9 ) THE learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner maintained that Or. VIII, r. 10 does not apply to the facts of the case placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Sampa Pujari's (1) case. ( 10 ) IT is true that the learned Judge who disposed of that case, after referring to the provisions of Rr. 9 and 10 and also the observation of the learned commentator on R. 10 of Or. VIII in Mulla's CPC, 13th edn. , by T. L. Venkatarama Iyer, has observed thus :"hence it is clear that failure to file a written statement as required by the court under R. 9, would attract the provisions of R. 10. Mere failure to file written statement in other cases does not come within R. 10 and the Court will have no jurisdiction to pronounce judgment against the defendant in such a case". It must be noticed that this observation was made by the learned Judge on a consideration of Rr. 9 and 10 of Or. VIII before r. 10 was drastically amended by Act 104 of 1976. R. 10 of Or. It must be noticed that this observation was made by the learned Judge on a consideration of Rr. 9 and 10 of Or. VIII before r. 10 was drastically amended by Act 104 of 1976. R. 10 of Or. VIII as it stood prior to the said amendment reads :"where any party from whom a written statement is so required fails to present the same within the time fixed by the Court, the Court may pronounce judgment against him, or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit". ( 11 ) THE relevant discussion respecting the scope of the unamended R. 10 of Or. VIII after extracting both Rr. 9 and 10 of or. VIII reads thus"r. 10 states that there any party from whom a written statement is so required fails to present the same within the time fixed by the Court, the Court may pronounce judgment against him. The words "so required" have obviously reference to the previous Rule, which states that no pleadings subsequent to the written statement of the defendant shall be presented except with the leave of the Court, but the Court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same. From a reading of Rr. 9 and 10, it looks as if the Court has got jurisdiction to pronounce judgment only If the Court requires a party to file a written statement or additional written statement and fixes a time for presenting the same and if the party commits default". To reinforce the above conclusion, the learned Judge made use of the following observation of the learned commentator on the scope of R. io in Mulla's CPC (13tb edn. by T. L. Venkatarama Iyer ). "this rule enables the Court to pronounce judgment against the defendant on failure to file a written statement such as is required by R. 9. Failure to file a written statement in other cases does not come within this rule, and the court cannot in those cases pass a decree against the defendant unless the plaintiff proves his case". ( 12 ) A comparative reading of R. 10 of or. VIII of CPC as It stood prior to its amendment by Act 104/1976 and as it now stands would reveal the drastic changes brought about in R. 10. ( 12 ) A comparative reading of R. 10 of or. VIII of CPC as It stood prior to its amendment by Act 104/1976 and as it now stands would reveal the drastic changes brought about in R. 10. It is specifically provided under R. 10 that where a party from whom a written statement is required under R. 1 or R. 9 falls to present the same within the time permitted and fixed by the court, as the case may be, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment a decree shall be drawn up. The aforesaid underlined (in italics) portions of R. 10 are the changes brought about by the 1976 amendment. There was no mention either of R. 1 or R. 9 in the unamended R. 10 from whom a written statement is required so as to attract the provisions of R. 10. The expression in this respect used in the unamended R. 10 was where a party from whom a written statement is so required and construing this expression in the light of R. 9, the learned judge reached the conclusion that the court has got jurisdiction to pronounce judgment under R. 10 only if the court requires a party to file a written statement or additional written statement and fixes a time for presenting the same under R. 9 and if the party commits default, and in no other case where there is a mere failure to file a written statement by the defendant in which case the Court will have no jurisdiction to pronounce judgment against the defendant. Now it is seen from the amendment brought to R. 10, that R. 1 is specifically brought within the ambit of R. 10, which makes obligatory for the defendant to present a written statement of his defence in the suit. Thus as R. 10 now stands where a defendant from whom a written statement is required under R. 1 or R. 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court, as the case may be, the provisions of R. 10 would come into play and the Court shall pronounce a judgment against the defendant or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. This being the correct position in law, in my considered opinion, in view of the changes brought about in the relevant provisions of the CPC by the Amendment Act 104/1976, the view expressed by the learned Judge in Sampa Pujari's (1) case that r. 10 would come into play only in a case where there is a failure to file a written statement by the defendant as required under R. 9 will no more be a good law. Hence, the aforesaid decision will not help the learned Advocate for the petitioner to sustain his first contention. ( 13 ) NOW turning to the next contention that the order under challenge is liable to be set aside as it is not in conformity with or. XX, R. 4 of CPC, in my considered opinion, this contention appears to be well founded. ( 14 ) R. 10 of Or. VIII provides for the court to pronounce a judgment against a party from whom a written statement is required under R. 1 or R. 9 when he fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court as the case may be and on the pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up. Judgment as defined under S. 2 (9) means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. R. 4 of or. XX provides for the contents of a judgment of Court of small causes and judgments of other Courts. Sub rule (1) of R. 4 provides that a judgment of a court of small causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon, whereas sub- rule (2) of R. 4 provides that the judgments of other Courts shall contain a concise statement of the case, the point for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. The minimum that is required of a judgment of a Court small causes is that it shall contain the points for determination and the decision thereon. In the instant case, the order under challenge which amounts to a 'judgment within the meaning of R. 10 of Or. VIII, does not contain the points for determination and the decision thereon as required under sub rule (1) of R. 4 of Or. XX of CPC. In the instant case, the order under challenge which amounts to a 'judgment within the meaning of R. 10 of Or. VIII, does not contain the points for determination and the decision thereon as required under sub rule (1) of R. 4 of Or. XX of CPC. Assuming for the sake of argument that the Court below had the power to act under Or. VIII, R. 5 (2) of CPC, even then the order under challenge is not in conformity with R. 5 (2), where it is provided that it shall be lawful for the court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint where the defendant has not filed a pleading. Even in such a case, it was obligatory for the Court below to have examined the plea and the facts set out in the plaint to find out whether the plaintiff has made out a case for passing a decree in his suit as prayed. The decision in Nagamma v. Venkataramu (2) is on the point. Thus, It seems to me that the order under challenge does not satisfy the requirements of law and, as such, is liable to be sei aside. ( 15 ) IN the view of my findings on the aforesaid contentions, it seems to me unnecessary to record a finding on the remaining contention canvassed on behalf of the petitioner whether the order passed by the learned Chief Judge of small causes, decreeing the suit without recording evidence is erroneous or not. ( 16 ) IN the result, for the reasons stated above, the revision petition is allowed. The order under challenge is set aside. The matter is remitted to the Court below for fresh disposal in accordance with law after giving opportunity to both parties to put forward their respective contentions and of being heard. There is no order as to costs. The lower Court is directed to dispose of this case on top priority basis after giving notice to both parties within a fortnight from the date of receipt of this order. --- *** --- .