JUDGMENT - R.M.S. KHANDEPARKAR, J. :---The present appeal arises from the order dated 20th July 1989 passed by the Additional District Judge, South Goa, Margao in Regular Civil Appeal No. 1/1986. The said Regular Civil Appeal was filed against the Judgment and Decree of the trial Court dated 30th September 1985 passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 10/73. 2.The appellants who were the plaintiffs in the trial Court had filed the said suit for permanent injunction against the respondents claiming that the plaintiffs are the owners and in possession of the suit property and the defendants have no right thereto. The cause of action for filing the suit is stated to be that the defendants started digging trenches in the suit property for the purpose of construction of a structure. Initially the plaintiffs' suit was decreed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Quepem but in Regular Civil Appeal No. 89/81 the District Judge, Margao set aside the said judgment and the matter was remanded for de novo assessment of the evidence on record. The trial Court after de novo assessment of the evidence on record dismissed the suit by its judgment and decree dated 30th September 1985. Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred Regular Civil Appeal No. 1/86. The learned Additional District Judge, Margao dismissed the said appeal by his judgment and order dated 20th July 1989. 3.The present appeal before this Court was admitted on 27th July 1990 on the following points: (1) The appellants submit that the respondents herein did not file any written statement to the plaint of the appellants herein. The appellants submit that no issues were framed by the learned trial Court. Under the circumstances, could the courts below record evidence in the suit without informing the appellants as to the issues involved in the suit ? (2) The appellants submit that no written statement was filed by the respondents herein. Under the circumstances, could the courts below allow the respondents to lead evidence without any pleadings on their behalf? and (3) The appellants submit that both the courts below failed to consider the order passed by the Mamlatdar of Quepem which held that the appellants were in possession of the property. Could the courts below give a complete go-by to the order passed by the Mamlatdar of Quepem, as regards the possession of the suit property? and (3) The appellants submit that both the courts below failed to consider the order passed by the Mamlatdar of Quepem which held that the appellants were in possession of the property. Could the courts below give a complete go-by to the order passed by the Mamlatdar of Quepem, as regards the possession of the suit property? 4.Shri Z. D'Souza, learned advocate appearing for the appellants, submitted that in view of Order VIII, Rule 10 read with Rule 5 of C.P.C. the trial Court could not have proceeded to record the evidence in the matter and should have decreed the suit on account of failure on the part of the defendants to file their written statement. He further submitted that in view of the absence of any denial of the pleadings of the plaintiffs, it was incumbent upon the trial Court to decree the suit without insisting for any evidence or proof regarding the case of the plaintiffs. In support of his contention Shri D'Souza relied upon the judgment of this Court in the matter of (Shriram Surajmal v. Shriram Jhunjhunwalla)1, reported in A.I.R. 1936 Bombay 285. 5.Shri V.P. Thali, learned advocate appearing for the respondents, submitted that none of the points canvassed in the Second Appeal were raised before the first Appellate Court and that in the given set of facts the so called substantial questions or issues raised by the appellants do not arise at all. 6.The records of the trial Court disclose that the matter proceeded for recording of evidence at the request of the plaintiffs themselves and the matter was postponed for recording defence evidence on various occasions without any objection on the part of the plaintiffs. Undisputably the points sought to be raised in relation to Order VIII, Rule 10 were not raised before the lower Appellate Court or before the trial Court at any point of time. With this background, it is not permissible for the appellants to make any grievance at the stage of second appeal that lower Court ought to have decreed the suit without recording any evidence. Nothing prevented the appellants from bringing the provisions contained in Order VIII, Rule 10 to the notice of the trial Court before proceeding to record evidence by the plaintiffs themselves. Nothing prevented the appellants from bringing the provisions contained in Order VIII, Rule 10 to the notice of the trial Court before proceeding to record evidence by the plaintiffs themselves. The records show that the entire evidence was recorded without objection by any of the parties and the witnesses were thoroughly examined and cross-examined by both the parties. Nevertheless the trial Court as well as the lower Appellate Court have considered the evidence produced by the plaintiffs for decision in the matter and have not taken into consideration the evidence produced by the defendants. That apart it is always in the discretion of the trial Court to decide whether to decree the suit in terms of Order VIII, Rule 10 or to insist upon the proof of the case pleaded by the plaintiff, inspite of failure on the part of the defendant to file the written statement. Considering the provisions contained in Order VIII, Rule 5 read with Order VIII, Rule 10 of C.P.C., I do not find any infirmity in the proceedings before the lower Appellate Court in recording the evidence inspite of failure on the part of the defendants to file their written statement. It is in the discretion of the Court as to whether the suit should be decreed or not on account of failure on the part of the defendants to file their written statement inspite of appropriate summons issued and served upon the defendants calling upon them to file their written statement. The records do not disclose that there is any arbitrariness on the part of the lower courts in exercising its discretion in this respect. Even otherwise it is not correct to say that moment there is failure on the part of the defendants to file written statement, the trial Court is duty bound to decree the suit. On the other hand it is the duty of the Court to analyse the pleadings so as to find out if it is safe to rely on the pleadings itself or to require proof of the contents thereof. The discretion under Order VIII, Rule 10 of C.P.C. cannot be exercised blindly and without application of mind. Even the decision sought to be relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellants itself makes it clear that:- "There is, however, a proviso to O. 8, R. 5, which does not appear in the English rule. The discretion under Order VIII, Rule 10 of C.P.C. cannot be exercised blindly and without application of mind. Even the decision sought to be relied upon by the learned advocate for the appellants itself makes it clear that:- "There is, however, a proviso to O. 8, R. 5, which does not appear in the English rule. That proviso enables the Court in its discretion to require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. In this country, where false suits are not unknown, the power may often usefully be exercised in practice,...". In other words this Hon'ble Court in the decision of Shriram Surajmal on analysing the scope of Order VIII, Rule 5, while observing that every allegation of fact in the plaint must be taken to be admitted unless denied or stated to be not admitted in the pleadings of the defendant, has also cautioned the courts that the discretion is not to be exercised blindly but on application of mind and depending on the facts and circumstances of each case. Being so, I do not find any fault with the trial Court in proceeding to record evidence in the matter inspite of failure on the part of the defendants to file their written statement. 7.As regards the non-framing of issues in the matter, it is apparent from the judgment of the trial Court that the trial Court had framed an issue arising from the case pleaded by the plaintiffs alone before proceeding to decide the matter. The issue is squarely in relation to the pleadings in the plaint. The plaintiffs had clearly understood the case which they were required to prove. This is apparent from the evidence led by the plaintiffs and from the cross-examination of the defence witnesses. I do not find any substance in the grievance made by the appellants in this respect. Since no prejudice is caused in any manner to the plaintiffs by framing of such issue before disposal of the suit and no grievance having been made in respect thereof by the appellants before the lower Appellate Court, I do not find any substance in the submissions made by the learned advocate for the appellants in this respect. Hence I do not find any impropriety in the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court in the matter of recording evidence without framing such issue. Hence I do not find any impropriety in the exercise of jurisdiction by the trial Court in the matter of recording evidence without framing such issue. 8.As regards the third point, the learned advocate for the appellants fairly conceded that the order of the Mamlatdar of Quepem was not placed on record by the appellants. In view of the admission on the part of the appellants, the said point does not arise for consideration. 9.Being so, all the three points are to be answered in the negative. In the result, the appeal fails and is hereby accordingly dismissed. Costs by the appellants. Appeal dismissed.