S. K. DUBEY, J. ( 1 ) THIS is a plaintiff's miscellaneous appeal under O. 43, Rule 1 (u) of the Code of Civil Procedure, against the order dated 11-3-1991 of remand passed by the lower appellate Court in Civil Appeal No. 91 A/88 preferred against the ex parte judgement and decree dated 29-11-75 passed in Civil Suit No. 22a/74 by Civil Judge Class-I, Vidisha. ( 2 ) THE material facts leading to this appeal are thus : plaintiff instituted a suit for specific performance against the respondents No. 1 and 2 on the averments that the father of the respondents No. 1 and 2, Umrao Singh entered into a registered agreement to sell on 13-6-67 in respect of the agricultural suit land, but prior to execution of the registered document of same Umrao Singh died, hence, when the respondents did not execute the sale deed, the plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance. It is stated by the plaintiff that during the pendency of the suit, he was dispossessed, hence the relief of restoration of possession was also claimed after amending the plaint. On 24-5-1975, one of the respondents, i. e. , Gulabbai transferred her share in the land to respondent Nirpat Singh. The suit was contested by the two respondents by filing written statement taking a defence that Umrao Singh was not the owner of the suit land and the land was owned and possessed by one Barelal, therefore, Umrao Singh was having no interest, right or title in the suit land and agreement to sell is ineffective. The trial Court on the written statement so filed framed as many as 8 issues. ( 3 ) AFTER transfer, on 20-9-75 counsel for defendants No. 1 and 2 pleaded no instructions, hence, the trial Court proceeded ex parte and recorded ex parte evidence on 11-11-75 and fixed the case for arguments on 17-11-75. After hearing arguments, the case was fixed for delivery of judgement on 25-11-75. ( 3 ) AFTER transfer, on 20-9-75 counsel for defendants No. 1 and 2 pleaded no instructions, hence, the trial Court proceeded ex parte and recorded ex parte evidence on 11-11-75 and fixed the case for arguments on 17-11-75. After hearing arguments, the case was fixed for delivery of judgement on 25-11-75. The purchaser pendente lite moved an application under Order I, Rule 10, C. P. C, on 24-11-75 for impleading him as party, that was dismissed in default of the applicant Nirpat Singh, who again on 26-11-75 applied afresh, which was dismissed after hearing on merits on 29-11-75, and on the same day the trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance and restoration of possession without recording separate finding on each issue so framed. ( 4 ) AGGRIEVED of the judgement and decree of the trial Court, Nirpat Singh who was not a party to the suit, filed an appeal and applied for grant of leave to file an appeal, as he was an aggrieved party. The appellate Court, after notice to the respondent/plaintiff, heard the application for grant of leave as well as the appeal on merits. After hearing, the lower appellate Court granted the leave to the appellant to file an appeal against the judgement and decree so appealed and also allowed the appeal remitting the case to the trial Court holding that the trial Court in its ex parte judgement has not stated the findings or decision on the issues with the reasons, nor the decision on the issues is reflected from the judgement so pronounced, which is contrary to Order 20, Rule 5, C. P. C. while it was more necessary when the defence was that the suit land was not owned and possessed by Umrao Singh, but by one Barelal who was the owner and in possession of the land, therefore, it was incumbent upon the plaintiff to adduce the evidence to that effect and it was the duty of the trial. Court to record a specific finding on the title and possession of Umrao Singh in respect of the suit land. The trial Court was also directed to allow an opportunity to respondent Nirpat Singh to file his written statement and then to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. Aggrieved of this order of remand, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal. The trial Court was also directed to allow an opportunity to respondent Nirpat Singh to file his written statement and then to proceed with the suit in accordance with law. Aggrieved of this order of remand, the appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal. ( 5 ) SHRI R. A. Raman, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that in a suit for specific performance of contract to sell, a purchaser pendente lite cannot be allowed to be joined as a party, as he will be bound by the proceedings taken by the party, in whose favour the decree is passed, therefore, the lower appellate Court erred in granting leave and erred in remitting the case to the trial Court with allowing an opportunity to file written statement. Counsel placed reliance on a Full Bench decision of this Court in case of Panne Khushali v. Jeewanlal Mathoo Khatik, 1976 MPLJ 170 ; and a decision of the Supreme Court in case of Sm. Saila Bala Dassi v. Sm. Nirmala Sundari Dassi, AIR 1958 SC 394 . ( 6 ) ON the other hand, Shri K. N. Gupta, learned counsel for the respondent-purchaser, supported the order of the lower appellate Court and contended that as there was a contest in respect of interest, right or title of Umrao Singh as to the suit land, the trial Court ought to have recorded a separate finding on each issues, in particular the right, title and interest of Umrao Singh in the suit land, who entered into an agreement to sell. However, it was conceded by Shri Gupta that Nirpat Singh was the purchaser pendente lite, who stepped into the shoos of Gulabbai, therefore, he cannot be allowed to take inconsistent front to the written statement already filed by Gulabbai, but, as both the defendants were ex-parte, Nirpat Singh was rightly granted opportunity to defend the case in the interest of justice. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing counsel, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in the order passed by the lower appellate Court except as indicated hereinafter. ( 8 ) A look to the trial Court's judgement shows that it is slipshod. ( 7 ) AFTER hearing counsel, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in the order passed by the lower appellate Court except as indicated hereinafter. ( 8 ) A look to the trial Court's judgement shows that it is slipshod. The law is well settled that even in a case where the suit is ex parte or no evidence has been led by the opposite party in rebuttal or the witnesses having not been effectively cross-examined, a I plaintiff will not be entitled to a decree unless he proves his case by legal evidence. Therefore, when the issues were framed and the right of Umrao Singh was challenged, the plaintiff was bound to prove Umrao Singh's title, interest and possession over the suit land, the trial Court on the evidence, adduced by the plaintiff, ought to have stated a finding upon such issue and other issues, unless in the opinion of the Court, the finding upon any one or more of the issues was sufficient for the decision of the suit, which is the requirement of law under Order 20, Rule 5, CPC. ( 9 ) MOREOVER, it is also well settled that in appealable cases, it is always desirable that the Court should, as far as may be practicable, pronounce its opinion on all issues which have been raised in the case, it cannot avoid doing so on the ground that there is no evidence one way or the other. A judicial determination of a disputed claim where substantial questions of law or fact arise is satisfactorily reached, only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that suggest themselves to the Judge; a mere order deciding the matter in dispute not supported by reasons is no judgement at all. Recording of reasons in support of a decision of a disputed claim serves more purposes than one. It is intended to ensure that the decision is not the result of whim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the matter in contest, it is also intended to ensure adjudication of the matter according to law and the procedure established by law. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the Court has decided against him, and more so, when the judgement is subject to appeal. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the Court has decided against him, and more so, when the judgement is subject to appeal. The appellant Court will then have adequate material on which it may determine whether the facts are properly ascertained, the law has been correctly applied and the resultant decision is just. See AIR 1969 SC 1167 , Smt. Swaran Lata Ghosh v. Harendra Kumar Banerjee. ( 10 ) AS the judgement of the trial Court is in clear violation of the mandate of Order 20, Rule 5, CPC, no interference is called for in the order of the lower appellate Court. However, as the purchaser pendente lite has been impleaded as party and has been allowed an opportunity to file the written statement and to defend the case, the purchaser pendente lite shall not be allowed to take an inconsistent defence than that of taken in the written statement by his predecessors in title except legal pleas, which may be available to him under law to non-suit the plaintiff. ( 11 ) LET the records be sent to the concerned Courts. The contesting parties before this Court shall appear on 22/03/1993, for that no fresh notice : shall be issued. However, the trial Court shall issue notices to Gyanbai and Gulabbai as well as the State, therefore, shall proceed to dispose of the suit within a period of six months. ( 12 ) IN the circumstances of the case, parties to bear their own costs of this appeal. Order accordingly. .