R. K. ABICHANDANI, J. ( 1 ) ). The petitioner challenges in public interest the decision of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad. (Rural), in Regular Civil Suit No. 325 of 1991 decreeing the suit ex parte under Order VIII Rule 10 of the civil Procedure Code and thereby declaring the Notification dated 17-3-1989 issued by the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (Department of health), as illegal and that no licence was required under the Drugs and Cosmetic Act, 1940 for manufacturing disposable perfusion sets. ( 2 ) ). The respondent No. 5 filed a suit being Regular Civil Suit No. 325 of 1991 in the Court of the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ahmedabad (Rural), challenging the notification issued on 17-3-1989 by which in pursuance of Clause (iv) (b) of Section 3 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 the Central Government specified the following devices after consultation with the Drugs Technical Advisory Board, as drugs with immediate effect: (i) Disposable Hypodermic Syringes, (ii) Disposable Hypodermic needles, and (iii) Disposable Perfusion sets. ( 3 ) ). It is recorded in the judgment that the respondent No. 4 (original defendant) was served with the summons but did not care to appear and had not filed any written statement. Observing that neither the defendant (present respondent No. 4) nor its representative had cared to ap[pear or to file written statement before the Court, the Court proceeded straightway to decreeing the suit. On a mere observation that there was no reason to disbelieve the averments made in the plaint. ( 4 ) ). Section 3 (b) of the said Act defines the word drugs as stated in Clause (iv), which includes, such devices intended to be used for internal or external use in the diagnosis treatment, mitigation or prevention of any disease or disorder in human beings or animals, as may be specified from time to time by the Central Government by Notification in the Official Gazette, after consultation with the Board. ( 5 ) ). In pursuance of sub-Clause (iv) of Clause (b) of Section 3 of the said Act the aforesaid three devices, including disposable perfusion sets were notified, as drugs. As provided by Section 18 of the said Act, a licence is required for manufacturing or sale or distribution, etc. of any drug as provided therein. ( 6 ) ). In pursuance of sub-Clause (iv) of Clause (b) of Section 3 of the said Act the aforesaid three devices, including disposable perfusion sets were notified, as drugs. As provided by Section 18 of the said Act, a licence is required for manufacturing or sale or distribution, etc. of any drug as provided therein. ( 6 ) ). The Trial Court without examining the provisions of Section 3 (b) (iv) and Section 18 of the said Act or examining the nature of the notification dated 17-3-1989 simply set aside that notification on the ground that the respondent No. 4 State had not filed any written statement or appeared despite the service of summons. ( 7 ) ). Provision of Order VIII Rule 10 of the C. P. Code undoubtedly empowers the Court to pronounce the judgment, when any party from whom a written statement is required under Rule 1 or Rule 9 fails to present the same within the time permitted or fixed by the Court. By the fact that the judgment is required to be pronounced carried with it obligation on the part of the Court to give reasons and decision thereon. The Court cannot without considering the relevant facts of the case and without giving any reason straightway pass a decree. The judgments of such Courts are required to contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision, as required by Order XX Rule 4 of the Civil Procedure Code. The Court did not apply its mind to provisions of Section 3 (b) and Section 18 of the said Act and the fact that the Notification dated 17-3-1989 which was challenged before it was issued by the Ministry of health and Family Welfare, of the Central Government. If it had considered this material it would have noticed that the Central Government was not made a party to the suit and that the said Notification was not issued by the State of Gujarat who was the only defendant in the suit. The Court would have also noted that as many as three devices were declared as drugs by the said Notification, i. e. (i) Disposable Hypodermic Syringes, (ii) Disposable Hypodermic needles and (iii) Disposable Perfusion sets, of disposable nature. The Court would have also noted that as many as three devices were declared as drugs by the said Notification, i. e. (i) Disposable Hypodermic Syringes, (ii) Disposable Hypodermic needles and (iii) Disposable Perfusion sets, of disposable nature. The impugned decision of the Court cannot be term (sic.) a judgment in the eye of law as it does not satisfy the requirements of a judgment. It gives no reason for the decision. The gross error in exercise of jurisdiction by the Trial Court and the public interest involved impel this Court to exercise its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 8 ) ). The Trial Court has therefore committed an error in exercise of its jurisdiction. The impugned ex parte judgment and decree dated 13-8-1991 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 325 of 1991 are therefore hereby set aside and the Trial Court will proceed with the suit expeditiously. Rule made absolute with no order as to costs. .