JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. This first appeal has been brought from the judgment and decree dated 2.9.1992 and 4.9.1992 respectively passed by the learned Asstt. District Judge No. 1, Cachar at Silchar now designated as the Civil Judge (Sr. Division) in Money Suit No. 13 of 1991 decreeing the suit ex-parte for Rs.3,35,886.19 with costs of the suit and pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum till recovery of the decretal amount. 3. The only issue raised in this appeal is that the trial court in passing the impugned judgment did not discuss at all the evidences adduced by the plaintiffs and further the documents exhibited by them were also left out from consideration to arrive at the ex-parte finding as reflected in the judgment assailed. It is argued on behalf of the appellant that the impugned judgment is contrary to the provisions of law laid down under Order 20 Rule 4(2) of the CPC and as such on this count alone the same is liable to be set aside. 4. For better appreciation of the sole point as advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, it would be proper and appropriate to refer to Order 20 Rule 4(2) CPC which runs as under : "Judgment of the other Courts. - Judgments of the other Courts shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision." 5. The above mentioned provisions of law explicitly envisages that there are four essential requirements which must be contained in passing the judgment. Those are : (1) concise statement of the facts, (2) the points for determination, (3) the decision thereon and (4) the reasons for such decision. It appears that the provision of this Rule is mandatory and should be strictly followed. The requirements of this legal provisions are applicable whether the suit is contested or not. 6. In the instant case, in decreeing the plaintiffs suit, the trial court wrote the impugned judgment as follows : "Perused plaint statement of the witness No. 1 for the plaintiff side as recorded on 1.9.1992 and supporting documents which are marked exhibited. Heard Mr. P.K. Choudhury and P. Deb learned Counsels for the plaintiff. 6. In the instant case, in decreeing the plaintiffs suit, the trial court wrote the impugned judgment as follows : "Perused plaint statement of the witness No. 1 for the plaintiff side as recorded on 1.9.1992 and supporting documents which are marked exhibited. Heard Mr. P.K. Choudhury and P. Deb learned Counsels for the plaintiff. Defendants received summons of the suit, some of them appeared and took steps for filing w/s but ultimately they did not. From the plaint and evidence on record, a prima facie case of the plaintiff is made out. The suit is decreed ex-parte for Rs.3,35,886.19 with cost of the suit and pendente lite and future interest @ 6% per annum till recovery of the decretal amount. Prepare decree accordingly." 7. On the face of this judgment, though it appears to be not in accordance with legal procedure provided under Order 20 Rule 4(2) CPC, it is evident that the learned Judge recorded that statements made in the plaint and evidence of only witness No. 1 of the plaintiff as well as the supporting documents exhibited were perused and since the defendants did not file any written statement despite notice nor did they appear, the suit was decreed ex-parte. Moreso, on close scrutiny of the materials available on record including the order sheet of the trial court, it appears that after appearance of the defendants, on various dates on their prayer, time was granted to file the written statements. It would be necessary to mention the adjourned dates accommodating the defendants to file written statements. Those dates were 12.11.1991; 21.12.1991; 6.2.1992; 26.3.1992; 2.5.1992 and 3.6.1992. Thereafter, when the matter came up again on 10.7.1992, the trial court rejected the prayer of the defendant for filing written statement and the matter was fixed on 1.9.1992 for ex-parte hearing and on 1.9.1992 the defendant again prayed for time for filing written statement and the prayer was rejected and the suit was taken up for ex-parte hearing. Consequently, one witness on behalf of the plaintiff was examined and a good number of documents were proved and marked as Exhibits fixing the matter on 2.9.1992 for orders and accordingly, on 2.9.1992, the impugned order was passed. On perusal of those dates, it appears that the defendants/appellant were given ample opportunity and sufficient time for filing written statements to defend their case. On perusal of those dates, it appears that the defendants/appellant were given ample opportunity and sufficient time for filing written statements to defend their case. But no written statements were forthcoming from the defendants side for the reasons best known to them and having no other alternative, the trial court had to proceed in accordance with law for ex-parte hearing. Therefore, on consideration of evidence and the documents so exhibited, the trial court passed the impugned judgment. Obviously the judgment did not contain the detailed discussion of the evidence on record and the required reasons for decision. The learned judge ought to have rendered the impugned judgment in terms of the mandate of Order 20 Rule 4(2). But if the impugned judgment is meticulously examined in its entirety, the same cannot be said outrightly to be no judgment at all. Since the whole case was based on books of account for which the relevant documents had already been proved by way of producing them as Exhibits and the defendants also failed to file written statement notwithstanding several adjournments granted by the court to submit the same, the suit was decreed ex-parte on scrutiny of the evidence on record as well as the documents so proved as exhibits. 8. We have meticulously gone through the entire materials available on record. On close inspection of those materials, we have found that the plaintiffs, being grey and coloured yarn merchants and commission agents, were carrying on their partnership business and they entered into a contract with the defendants/appellants for supply of yarn in pursuance of related tender notice and accordingly started supplying those products but the bills for supply of those products had not been paid by the defendants despite their repeated request which forced them to file the Money Suit for payment of outstanding amount calculated at Rs.3,35,886.19. In support of such claim, the plaintiff/respondent had enclosed a detailed accounts which were duly proved by a relevant documents exhibited by the plaintiffs/respondents. We have also carefully gone through those documents that have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and accordingly we are satisfied that the appellant is liable to pay those outstanding bill remained unpaid in spite of repeated request from the end of the respondents. 9. We have also carefully gone through those documents that have not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and accordingly we are satisfied that the appellant is liable to pay those outstanding bill remained unpaid in spite of repeated request from the end of the respondents. 9. In that view of the matter, upon hearing learned counsel for the parties at length as well as on overall consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that the plaintiff respondents are entitled for a decree of the amount as claimed and accordingly we uphold the decree so passed by the learned trial court. In the result, this appeal fails and stands dismissed. Appeal dismissed.