JUDGMENT : The plaintiff in O.S. No. 264 of 2015 is the appellant. The plaintiff filed O.S. No. 264 of 2015 before the Munsiffs Court, Kozhikode, praying for cancellation of Exts. A2 to A4. The Munsiffs Court decreed the suit. Against the said decree and judgment, the first respondent herein filed appeal before the District Court as A.S. No.182/2015. The appellate court as per judgment dated 18-11-2016, allowed the appeal and set aside the decree and judgment passed by the trial court. The appellate court also remanded the case to the trial court. The appellate court further directed the trial court to implead the first respondent herein as the additional 3rd defendant in the suit. Aggrieved by the said decree and judgment passed by the appellate court, this appeal has been filed by the plaintiff in the above said suit. 2. The contention of the appellant in O.S. No. 264/2015 is that the appellant obtained plaint A schedule property after the death of her mother Narayani by inheritance. The first defendant in the suit is the daughter and the 2nd defendant therein is the husband of the first defendant. The appellant executed Exts.A2 to A4 documents in favour of the defendants. Thereafter, the appellant came to know from her husband regarding the execution of Ext. A1 Will by late Narayani, the mother of the appellant, bequeathing her properties to her grandchildren, reserving life interest to the appellant and the first defendant. Therefore, she filed the above suit praying for cancellation of Exts. A2 to A4 documents. 3. The defendants remained ex-parte before the trial Court. Therefore, the trial court passed a decree when the appellant filed proof affidavit along with Exts. A1 to A4. 4. The first respondent herein is South Indian Bank Ltd.. It is contended by the first respondent that the defendants in the suit , who are the 2nd and 3rd respondents herein, availed a loan of Rs. 17,00,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs only) from the first respondent on the strength of equitable mortgage of the properties covered by Exts.A2 to A4. When the money was due from the defendants, the first respondent initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The authorised officer of the Bank initiated proceedings to take possession of the properties mortgaged with the bank. 17,00,000/- (Rupees seventeen lakhs only) from the first respondent on the strength of equitable mortgage of the properties covered by Exts.A2 to A4. When the money was due from the defendants, the first respondent initiated proceedings under the SARFAESI Act. The authorised officer of the Bank initiated proceedings to take possession of the properties mortgaged with the bank. Then Sikha Babu, the daughter of the defendants filed O.S. No. 262/2013 before the court for an injunction against the action initiated by the Bank under the SARFAESI Act. The contention therein was that late Narayani executed a registered Will whereby she had bequeathed her properties in favour of Sikha Babu and her brother Saran Babu and as such the appellant had no right to execute Exts. A2 to A4. The injunction petition was dismissed. The C.M.A filed against the dismissal of the injunction petition was also dismissed by the District Court directing the Bank to proceed under the SARFAESI Act. While so, Saran Babu, the brother of Sikha Babu filed another suit as O.S. No. 199/14 seeking for the same relief. The Bank filed O.S. No. 199/2015 before the Debt Recovery Tribunal, which is pending. The Authorised Officer heard and rejected the contentions of Sikha Babu and Saran Babu and decided to take possession of the properties mortgaged with the Bank. The decision was communicated to the parties on 28-7-2015. Then the defendants sent a letter informing the authorised officer that Exts. A2 to A4 were cancelled in the suit filed by the appellant herein before the trial court. Then only, the Bank came to know about the suit and the decree passed cancelling Exts. A2 to A4 documents, in respect of the properties covered by the mortgage. Thereupon, the bank filed appeal after obtaining leave from the appellate court. 5. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant. 6. The learned counsel for the appellant has argued that since the first respondent herein was a third party, he had no right to file appeal against the decree and judgment passed by the trial Court and in the said circumstances, the decision taken in appeal cannot be sustained. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Cyriac Stephen ( 1981 KLT 804 ) to buttress his argument. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant relied on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Kerala State Electricity Board v. Cyriac Stephen ( 1981 KLT 804 ) to buttress his argument. 7. In Kerala State Electricity Board (supra), the Court held that when a third party prefers an appeal, the appellate court will have to be satisfied that the appellant is bound or aggrieved or prejudicially affected by the decision of the lower court appealed against. 8. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Baldev Singh v. Surinder Mohan Sharma and Others [2003 KHC 707 : AIR 2003 SC 225 ) held that an appeal can be filed against the decree of an inferior Court only at the instance of a person aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the judgment and decree. 9. It is now settled that if and only if a party is bound or aggrieved or prejudicially affected and dissatisfied with the decree, that party can file appeal. Therefore, in order to get the right to file appeal by a third party, he must satisfy the court that he is bound or aggrieved or prejudicially affected and dissatisfied with the judgment and the decree of the lower court appealed against. Whether a party is bound or aggrieved or prejudicially affected and dissatisfied with a decision of the lower court appealed against depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. 10. In this case, the properties covered by Exts. A2 to A4, were under mortgage with the bank. As per the decree, Exts. A2 to A4 were cancelled by the trial court, which would show that after the decree of the trial court, the first respondent Bank ceased to have right over the properties covered by Exts. A2 to A4. Since Exts. A2 to A4 relating to the properties mortgaged were cancelled by the trial court, there can be no doubt that the first respondent is aggrieved and dissatisfied with the decree as the decree prejudicially affected the right of the first respondent over the properties covered by Exts. A2 to A4 mortgaged with the Bank. In the said circumstances, the lower appellate court correctly granted him leave to file appeal. 11. Now the question to be considered is as to whether the decree passed by the trial court is sustainable. The lower appellate court observed that the plaintiff, who preferred the suit for cancellation of Exts. A2 to A4 mortgaged with the Bank. In the said circumstances, the lower appellate court correctly granted him leave to file appeal. 11. Now the question to be considered is as to whether the decree passed by the trial court is sustainable. The lower appellate court observed that the plaintiff, who preferred the suit for cancellation of Exts. A2 to A4, was the executant of the said documents. Being the executant of the said documents, she could not be heard to say that the said documents stood against the plaintiff, particularly when the plaintiff had no case that she had executed Exts. A2 to A4 due to the presence of any vitiating elements such as fraud, coercion or undue influence. In the said circumstances, the lower appellate court observed that the trial court ought to have examined the legal right of the plaintiff to institute and prosecute the present suit before passing the decree. The lower appellate court further observed that the trial court did not examine the legality of the claim put forward by the plaintiff. The lower appellate court also observed that the trial court ought to have found that normally no reasonable and prudent person would accept and believe the version put forward by the plaintiff that the plaintiff came to know about the execution of the Will by her mother only when her husband stated about the same. The lower appellate court further observed that the trial court should have conducted an enquiry as to whether there was collusion between the parties to the suit, on the facts of the case. The above observations made by the lower appellate court cannot be said to be without any substance. 12. The relevant portion in the judgment of the trial court is extracted hereunder:- "3. Plaintiff represented, D1 and D2 name called absent and set exparte and it is posted for affidavit, filed by the plaintiff and Exts. A1 to A4 marked. In the result, suit is decreed as follows:- the documents numbered 615/2000 and 614/2000 settlement deeds and 377/2008 settlement deed of SRO West Hill are to be cancelled. No cost". 13. It appears from the above quoted portion of the judgment of the trial court, that no reason was stated by the trial court for decreeing the suit. Not even a single sentence was written in the judgment regarding the reason to decree the suit. 14. No cost". 13. It appears from the above quoted portion of the judgment of the trial court, that no reason was stated by the trial court for decreeing the suit. Not even a single sentence was written in the judgment regarding the reason to decree the suit. 14. Section 2(9) C.P.C defines "judgment", which means the statement given by the Judge on the grounds of a decree or order. Order XX of C.P.C deals with "judgment and decree". Rule 4 (2) of Order XX C.P.C. says that the judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. It is clear from Order XX Rule 4 (2) C.P.C. that the reasons for the court to come to the ultimate conclusion to decree the suit must be clearly reflected in the judgment. This would mean that the judgment must be in accordance with the provisions of Section 2 (9) and Order XX Rule 4 (2) C.P.C. irrespective of whether the judgment was passed under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C or on the invocation of Order IX C.P.C or otherwise. 15. The Apex Court in Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad [2014 KHC 4105 : AIR 2014 SC 1356 ] held that the absence of defendant does not absolve the trial court from fully satisfying itself of the factual and legal veracity of the Plaintiff's claim. It was further held in Mayadevi (supra) that the failure to file a written statement, thereby bringing Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC into operation, or the factum of defendant having been set ex parte, does not invite a punishment in the form of an automatic decree. 16. The Apex court in Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha v. Tata Engineering and Locomotive Co.Ltd. and Another [2013 KHC 4219 : (2013) 4 SCC 396 ] held thus:- "In view of the above, it appears to be a settled legal position that the relief under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC is discretionary, and court has to be more cautious while exercising such power where defendant fails to file the written statement. Even in such circumstances, the court must be satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved in spite of deemed admission by the defendant, and the court must give reasons for passing such judgment, however short it be, but by reading the judgment, a party must understand what were the facts and circumstances on the basis of which the court must proceed, and under what reasoning the suit has been decreed". 17. The above proposition makes it clear that the Court has to be more cautious while exercising the power under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C. where defendant fails to file the written statement. Even in such cases, there is no fact which remains to be proved in spite of the deemed admission by the defendant. The court must also give reasons for passing the judgment, however short it be. By reading the judgment, a party must understand the facts and circumstances on the basis of which the suit has been decreed. Merely because the defendant does not file a written statement or the defendant has been set ex parte, it cannot lead to the passing of the decree mechanically or automatically. Both under Order VIII Rule 10 C.P.C and on the invocation of Order IX of the C.P.C., the court is nevertheless duty-bound to diligently ensure that the plaint stands proved and the prayers therein are worthy of being granted. 18. In the case on hand, no reason had been stated by the trial court for decreeing the suit. The facts and circumstances on the basis of which the decree was passed should have been stated in the judgment of the trial court. The plaintiff in the suit sought for cancellation of Exts. A2 to A4 on the strength of Ext. A1 Will. One of the requirements of due execution of a Will is its attestation by two or more witnesses, which is mandatory. Section 68 speaks of as to how a document required by law to be attested can be proved. It flows from the said Section that if there be an attesting witness alive, capable of giving evidence and subject to the process of the Court, he has to be necessarily examined before the document required by law to be attested can be used in evidence. 19. In this case, Ext.A1 was not proved as provided under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. 19. In this case, Ext.A1 was not proved as provided under Section 68 of the Evidence Act. Proving Ext. A1 was very much essential before the cancellation of Exts. A2 to A4. Since Ext. A1 was not proved by the plaintiff in accordance with law, the trial Court ought not have decreed the suit. For the said reasons, the decree and judgment passed by the trial court cannot be sustained and in the said circumstances, the lower appellate court was perfectly justified in setting aside the same and remitting the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration of the suit in accordance with law granting opportunity to the first respondent herein also to contest the matter. 20. Having gone through the relevant inputs, I find no question of law, much less any substantial question of law, to be decided in this appeal. In the said circumstances, this appeal lacks merits and the same is accordingly dismissed. In the result, this Appeal stands dismissed.