JUDGMENT: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice Dilip B. Bhosale) This Appeal Suit is directed against the judgment dated 09-06-2003, rendered by the Senior Civil Judge, at Suryapet in O.S.No.10 of 2003. The Suit was instituted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 for partition and separate possession of the suit properties. It appears that none of the defendants in the Suit entered appearance and as a result thereof, the Court below, after placing the defendants ex parte, passed the following judgment: D-1 to D-12 are called absent. The written statement is not filed by them even though the 90 days period as stipulated U/O. 8 R-5 is fixed from the date of receipt of summons. There is no other option to the Court except to pass a decree as prayed as per Order VIII, R-10 C.P.C. Hence the suit of the plaintiff is decreed as prayed for and accordingly a preliminary decree is ordered to be passed. Written and Pronounced by me and typed my manscript in the Open Court on this the 9th day of June, 2003. 2. It is clear from the contents of the judgment that the learned judge passed the judgment blindly, since a written statement had not been filed by the defendants traversing the facts set out by the plaintiffs in the plaint and decreed the suit instituted by respondent Nos.1 and 2 plaintiffs in terms of the aforesaid judgment. By no stretch of imagination, the aforesaid judgment could be termed as judgment within the meaning of Section 2 (9), which defines judgment, read with Rule 4(2) of Order 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ( for short CPC). 3. The Supreme Court in Balraj Taneja and another v. Sunil Madan and another, had an occasion to deal with the definition of judgment. In this judgment the Supreme Court observed that the judgment should be a self-contained document from which it should appear as to what were the facts of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the Court and in what manner. The process of reasoning by which the Court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the Suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment. The process of reasoning by which the Court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the Suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment. Whether it is a case which is contested by the defendants by filing a written statement, or a case which proceeds ex parte and is ultimately decided as an ex parte case, or is a case in which the written statement is not filed and the case is decided under Order 8 Rule 10 of the CPC, the court has to write a judgment, which must be in conformity with the provisions of the CPC or at least set out the reasoning by which the controversy is resolved. 4. It would be advantageous to reproduce the relevant observations made by the Supreme Court in Balraj Taneja (supra), while dealing with the definition of judgment, in paragraphs 40-A, 43 and 44 which read thus: 40A. "Judgment" as defined in Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds for a decree or order. What a judgment should contain is indicated in Order 20, Rule 4 (2) which says that a judgment : "shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision." It should be a self-contained document from which it should appear as to what were the facts of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the Court and in what manner. The process of reasoning by which the Court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment. 43. . Whether it is a case which is contested by the defendants by filing a written statement, or a case which proceeds ex parte and is ultimately decided as an ex parte case, or is a case in which the written statement is not filed and the case is decided under Order 8, Rule 10, the Court has to write a judgment which must be in conformity with the provisions of the Code or at least set out the reasoning by which the controversy is resolved. 44. .. 44. .. Even if the definition were not contained in Section 2(9) or the contents thereof were not indicated in Order 20, Rule 1 (2), CPC, the judgment would still mean the process of reasoning by which a Judge decides a case in favour of one party and against the other. In judicial proceedings, there cannot be arbitrary orders. A Judge cannot merely say "Suit decreed" or "Suit dismissed". The whole process of reasoning has to be set out for deciding the case one way or the other. This infirmity in the present judgment is glaring and for that reason also the judgment cannot be sustained. 5. Keeping in view the judgment of the Supreme Court and considering the judgment, impugned in the instant appeal, it would be necessary to have a glance at some relevant Rules of Order 8, CPC. Rule 1 provides that the defendant shall file written statement of his defence. Rule 3 provides that it shall not be sufficient for a defendant in his written statement to deny generally the grounds alleged by the plaintiff, but he must deal specifically with each allegation of fact of which he does not admit the truth. Rule 4 provides that if the allegation made in the plaint is denied by the defendant, the denial must not be evasive. 5.1 It is, inter alia, provided in Rule 5 that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication or stated to be not admitted in the written statement, shall be taken to be admitted. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 provides that every allegation of fact in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be taken to be admitted except as against a person under disability; provided that the court may in its discretion require any fact so admitted to be proved otherwise than by such admission. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 provides that where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved. Sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 provides that where the defendant has not filed a pleading, it shall be lawful for the court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint, except as against a person under a disability, but the court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved. Sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 provides that in exercising its discretion under the Proviso to Sub-rule (1) or Sub-rule (2), the court shall have due regard to the fact whether the defendant could have, or has, engaged a Pleader. Sub-rule (4) of Rule 5 provides whenever a judgment is pronounced under this Rule, a decree shall be drawn up in accordance with such judgment and such decree shall bear the date on which the judgment was pronounced. 5.2 Thus, the scheme of Rule 5 is largely dependent upon the filing or non-filing of the pleading by the defendant and if any fact stated in the plaint, if not denied specifically or necessary implication or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be treated as admitted. Sub-rule (2) provides that if the defendant has not filed his written statement, it would be lawful for the court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint. It further proceeds to say that notwithstanding that the facts stated in the plaint are treated as admitted, the court, though it can lawfully pass the judgment, may before doing so require such fact to be proved. The Rule is in consonance with the proviso which requires the fact, even though treated as admitted, to be proved. The court in such situation can either proceed to pronounce judgment on such admitted facts or may require the plaintiff, in spite of such admission, to prove such facts. 5.3 Rule 9 of Order 8 CPC, speaks about subsequent pleadings. Under this Rule no pleading, subsequent to the written statement of a defendant other than by way of defence to a set-off or counter-claim, shall be presented except by the leave of the court and upon such terms as the court thinks fit, but the court may at any time require a written statement or additional written statement from any of the parties and fix a time for presenting the same. Rule 10 of Order 8, CPC provides for the procedure when party fails to present written statement called for by court. Under this Rule where 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, as the case may be, the court shall pronounce judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and on the pronouncement of such judgment, a decree shall be drawn up. Rule 10 thus governs the situation where the written statement is required under Rule 1 of Order 8, CPC as also where it has been demanded under Rule 9. In both the situations, if the written statement has not been filed by the defendant, it would be open to the court to pronounce the judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. 6. It is thus clear that if a written statement is not filed, the court is obliged to pronounce the judgment against the defendant. This Rule also gives discretion either to pronounce judgment against the defendant or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. The expression makes such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit, employed in Rule 10 of Order 8, CPC is of immense significance inasmuch as it give a discretion to the court not to pronounce judgment against the defendant and instead pass such order as it may think fit in relation to the suit. [See Balraj Taneja and another Vs. Sunil Madan and another]. There are thus two separate distinct provisions under which the court can pronounce judgment on the failure of the defendant to file written statement. The failure may be either under Order 8 Rule 5(2), CPC under which the court may either pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts set out in the plaint or require the plaintiff to prove any such fact; or the failure may be under Order 8 Rule 10, CPC under which the court is required to pronounce judgment against the defendant or to pass such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit. 6.1 We would also like to make reference to Rule 6 of Order 8, CPC. 6.1 We would also like to make reference to Rule 6 of Order 8, CPC. Under this Rule, where a claim is admitted, the court has jurisdiction to enter a judgment for the plaintiff and to pass a decree on the admitted claim. The object of the Rule is to enable a party to obtain a speedy judgment at least to the extent of the relief to which, according to the admission of the defendant, the plaintiff is entitled. 7. In the backdrop of the scheme of Order 8, it is often noticed that trial courts proceed to pass judgments blindly, such as in the present case, simply because written statement had not been filed by the defendant traversing the facts set out by the plaintiff in the plaint. As a matter of fact, the courts should be cautious in proceeding under Order 8 Rule 10, CPC where written statement has not been filed by the defendant. Before passing the judgment against the defendant it must see to it that if the facts set out in the plaint are treated to have been admitted, a judgment could possibly be passed in favour of the plaintiff without requiring him to prove any fact mentioned in the plaint. As observed by the Supreme Court in Balraj Taneja (supra), it is a matter of courts satisfaction and, therefore, only on being satisfied that there is no fact which need be proved on account of deemed admission, the court can conveniently pass a judgment against the defendant who has not filed the written statement. But, if the plaint itself indicates that there are disputed questions of fact involved in the case regarding which two different versions are set out in the plaint itself, it would not be safe for the court to pass a judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts so as to settle the factual controversy. Such a case would be covered by the expression the court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved employed in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Order 8, or the expression may make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit used in Rule 10 of Order 8, CPC. Such a case would be covered by the expression the court may, in its discretion, require any such fact to be proved employed in sub-rule (2) of Rule 5 of Order 8, or the expression may make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit used in Rule 10 of Order 8, CPC. The court, therefore, before acting under Order 8 Rule 10, CPC has to scrutinize the facts set out in the plaint to find out whether all the requirements have been complied with or not. 8. In the present case, we have no hesitation in observing that the learned Judge while pronouncing the judgment did not follow the procedure contemplated by the aforementioned Rules of Order 8, and he has blindly pronounced the judgment merely because written statement had not been filed by the defendant traversing the facts set out in the plaint. That apart, as observed earlier, by no stretch of imagination, the impugned judgment in the present case could be treated as a judgment, as defined by Section 2(9) of the CPC. 9. The word judgment as defined in Section 2(9) of the CPC means the statement given by the Judge of the grounds for a decree or order. What a judgment should contain is indicated in Order 20, Rule 4(2), CPC. This provision says that a judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. In short it should be self-contained documents from which it should appear as to what were the facts of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the court and in what manner. The process of reasoning by which the court came to the ultimate conclusion and decreed the suit should be reflected clearly in the judgment. In other words the court must state the grounds for its conclusion in the judgment and the judgment should be in conformity with the provisions of Section 2(9) of CPC, whether it is the judgment pronounced under Order 8 Rule 10 or otherwise. The court dealing with the suit in the absence of written statement, in any case, is obliged to write a judgment as understood in common parlance. The court dealing with the suit in the absence of written statement, in any case, is obliged to write a judgment as understood in common parlance. A Judge cannot merely say suit decreed, the whole process of reasoning has to be set out for deciding the case one way or the other. From bare perusal of the impugned judgment, it is apparent that it suffers from glaring infirmity and it cannot be sustained. 10. Having regard to the observation made by the Supreme Court in Balraj Taneja (supra), we have no hesitation in observing that the impugned judgment cannot be stated to be the judgment as set out in Section 2 (9) of the CPC. In the present case, as a matter of fact, learned counsel for respondent Nos.1 and 2 plaintiffs fairly submitted that the matter may be remitted to the trial Court for disposal of the Suit on merits, in accordance with law, expeditiously. 11. In the appeal, respondent No.2 plaintiff has filed A.S.MP.No.2957 of 2013 seeking impleadment of subsequent purchasers as party respondents in the appeal. We are not inclined to entertain the application in view of this judgment and we leave it open to the plaintiffs to file an application for similar relief before the Court below, if they so desire and advised. 12. In the circumstances, we dismiss A.S.MP.No.2957 of 2013 and allow the appeal. Impugned judgment is set aside. The Suit (O.S.No.10 of 2003) is restored to file. The trial Court shall deal with the Suit on merits in accordance with law. It is open to the defendants to file application for setting aside the order placing them ex parte and seek permission to file written statement. If any such application/s is/are filed by the defendants, we hope and trust that the trial Court shall deal with the same on merits and in accordance with law. Having regard to the fact that the Suit is of 2003, the trial Court shall endeavour to dispose it of as expeditiously as possible, preferably within one year from the date of receipt of this order. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents plaintiffs undertakes to produce copy of this judgment before the Court below within four weeks from today. No order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, if any, pending in the appeal also stand disposed of.