Order 8 Rule 10 CPC requires judicial discretion, not automatic decrees, and judgments must state reasons and issues.

Order 8 Rule 10 CPC does not permit a mechanical decree merely because no written statement is filed; the court must still exercise judicial discretion and assess whether the plaint discloses disputed material facts requiring proof. In a specific performance suit, readiness and willingness remain a condition precedent, so the plaintiff's pleadings must justify a decree on the merits. The document also states that a valid judgment under Section 2(9) and Order 20 Rule 4(2) CPC must record the case, points for determination, decision, and reasons; a decree lacking that reasoning is legally vulnerable.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a suit could be decreed under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 merely because the written statement was not filed, without examining whether the plaint disclosed disputed questions of fact requiring proof. (ii) Whether the judgment decreeing the suit satisfied the legal requirement of a judgment by recording the case, points for determination, decision, and reasons.

Issue (i): Whether a suit could be decreed under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 merely because the written statement was not filed, without examining whether the plaint disclosed disputed questions of fact requiring proof.

Analysis: Order 8 Rule 5 and Order 8 Rule 10 confer power to treat non-denial as admission and to pronounce judgment where no written statement is filed, but both provisions preserve judicial discretion. The Court is not bound to act mechanically on the absence of a written statement or on deemed admissions. Even in the absence of a written statement, the Court may require the plaintiff to prove facts pleaded in the plaint, especially where the plaint itself reveals a serious factual controversy. In a suit for specific performance, readiness and willingness under Section 16 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 is a condition precedent, and the Court must be satisfied that the pleaded facts justify a decree without further proof. Where the plaint discloses a live dispute on a material fact, the controversy cannot be resolved merely by default of defence.

Conclusion: The decree could not be sustained on the sole ground of non-filing of the written statement; the issue is answered in favour of the appellants.

Issue (ii): Whether the judgment decreeing the suit satisfied the legal requirement of a judgment by recording the case, points for determination, decision, and reasons.

Analysis: Section 2(9) and Order 20 Rule 4(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 require a judgment to contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision. This requirement applies even where the suit proceeds ex parte or under Order 8 Rule 10. A mere decree without the reasoning process does not answer the statutory conception of a judgment. The absence of factual narration and the absence of reasons reflecting why the plaintiff's case was accepted rendered the decree vulnerable.

Conclusion: The impugned decree did not satisfy the requirements of a judgment and could not be sustained; the issue is answered in favour of the appellants.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded, the decrees of the High Court were set aside, and the matter was remitted for fresh decision after permitting the filing of written statement within the stipulated time.

Ratio Decidendi: A court exercising power under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 must still apply judicial discretion and cannot decree a suit mechanically on the mere absence of a written statement where the plaint reveals disputed material facts or where the claim requires proof under the governing substantive law; a valid judgment must also record the case, issues, decision, and reasons.

---