This is an appeal from the decree of the Assistant District Judge (1) Cachar passed in Title Appeal No. 17 of 1980 dismissing the appeal from the decree passed by the Munsiff (1) Silchar in Title Suit No. 84 of 1969. 2. The plaintiffs instituted the suit for possession of the suit premises on the ground that the defendants are tenants of the plaintiffs, but the defendants have failed to pay the rent and that the plaintiffs require the suit premises for their own use. The defendants contested the suit denying the allegations made in the plaint. In their written statement, the defendants have also stated, inter alia, the land in dispute is an agricultural land and, therefore, the suit is not maintainable. Issues were framed. At the time of hearing of the suit on the adjourned date, the defendants did not appear. Accordingly, the suit was heard ex parte. After recording the evidence of PW I the trial Court passed the following judgment: "Plaintiff is ready with witness. The defendant side is absent without any step. The case is taken up ex parte. One of the plaintiffs examined himself and exhibited 4 documents. Perused the evidence on record. Prima facie case proved. The suit is decreed ex parte with costs as prayed for against the defendants. However the defendants are allowed 3 months' time to vacate the suit premises." After passing the above judgment, the defendants filed an application for adjournment of the case, but the application was refused. Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree, the defendants filed Title Appeal No. 17/80 in the Court of the Assistant District Judge (1), Cachar. The lower appellate Court dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal. 3. Mr.S. Dutta, the learned counsel for the appellants, has contended that, although the above quoted judgment is ex parte, it is not a judgment in the eyes of the law for lack of requisites of a judgment provided under Order 20, Rule 4, CPC. 4. The question which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the trial Court has not disposed of the suit in terms of Order 20, Rules 4 and 5. Section 2(9), CPC defines "judgment" to mean the statements given by a Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. 4. The question which, therefore, arises for consideration is whether the trial Court has not disposed of the suit in terms of Order 20, Rules 4 and 5. Section 2(9), CPC defines "judgment" to mean the statements given by a Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. Order 20 Rule 4 provides that, other than judgments of Small Cause Courts, the judgments of other Courts shall contain concise statement of the case the points for deteimination5 the decision thereon, and the reasons of such decision. Rule 5 provides that in suits in which issues have been trained, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons thereof upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or mare of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit. 5. In view of Order 20, Rule 4, the essential requisites of a judgment other than a judgment of a Small Cause Court are a concise statement of the case of the parties, the point for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons of such decision. 6. The question then is, - Whether the essential requisites of a judgment stated above can be left out in a judgment ex parte. It is settled that laws of procedure are based on the principle of natural justice that, as far as possible, no proceeding in a Court of law should be conducted to the detriment of the person in his absence in the absence of an express provision like the one under Order 9, Rule 6, CPC. Therefore , if the defendant is absent, Court's respon­sibility is increased. Simply because the Court has made an order that the suit would be heard ex parte, the burden of the plaintiff to prove his case is not lightened, and the plaintiff is bound to prove his case to the satisfaction of the Court. A judgment, whether it is passed exparte or not, affects the rights and liabilities of parties. Therefore, merely because the Court passed a judgment exparte, the essential requisites of a judgment cannot be omitted. Rule'127 of the Civil Rules and Orders of the High Court further provides that judgments in exparte cases shall state specifically and explicitly which of the reliefs in the plaint are granted and against which of the defendants. 7. Therefore, merely because the Court passed a judgment exparte, the essential requisites of a judgment cannot be omitted. Rule'127 of the Civil Rules and Orders of the High Court further provides that judgments in exparte cases shall state specifically and explicitly which of the reliefs in the plaint are granted and against which of the defendants. 7. On a perusal of the judgment of the trial Court it clearly indicates that it does not contain concise statement of the case of the parties, points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons of such decision. The judgment of the trial Judge also does not show that which of the reliefs in the plaint has been granted against which of the defendants. The Court has blindly decreed the suit on the ground that a prima facie case lias been disclosed. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the trial Court are vitiated for lack of requisites of a judgment. The lower appellate Court has not considered the case in the light of the discussion above. In that view of the matter, the judgments and decrees of the Courts below cannot be sustained. 8. In the result, the appeal is allowed and the judgments and decrees of the Courts below are set aside. The case is sent back to the trial Judge for disposal of the suit afresh after giving the defendants an opportunity of being heard. No costs