1. The appellant/defendant has preferred this appeal under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the ex parte judgment and decree dated 16-1-89, passed in Civil Suit No. 12A/1984 by Second Additional Judge to the Court of District Judge, Gwalior.
2. Material facts giving rise to this appeal are thus : appellant is the husband of respondent No. 1, and the father of respondents Nos. 2, 3 and 4. Because of non-cordial relationship between the appellant and respondent No. 1, the appellant started living separately, hence, the respondents instituted a suit claiming monthly maintenance to them and the amount of expenses for the marriage of the daughter; Ku. Rajni. The defendant filed written statement and contested the suit. The trial Court on the pleadings of parties, where they were at real and substantial difference, framed as many as six issues. During trial on 18-2-87, the defendant could not appear at the time of call at 12.30 p.m., hence, the Court ordered to proceed ex parte. After about an hour, the defendant appeared and filed an application to set aside the ex parte order passed against him, but the Court dismissed the application in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Arjun Singh v. Mohin-dra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993, as the entire . hearing was completed and the case was adjourned for pronouncing the judgment. On it, the defendant on 11-8-1987, prior to the date of pronouncing the judgment, moved an application under Order 6, Rule 17, C.P.C. for bringing subsequent events on record which was also dismissed on 20-12-88. Again an application under Order 6, Rule 17, read with Section 151, C.P.C. was filed on 23-12-88 by the appellant/defendant, which was also dismissed on 17-1-1989 in view of the law laid down in Arjun Singh's case (supra). Thereafter, on the same day, the trial Court pronounced the judgment directing the appellant to pay monthly maintenance at the rate of Rs. 200/ - per month to the respondent No. 1, the wife, Rs. 350/- per month to the children and Rs. 10000/- for meeting the expenses for the marriage of Ku. Rajni. It is this decree, which has been challenged in appeal.
3. Shri B. S. Chouhan, learned counsel for the respondents, raised a preliminary objection that this appeal cannot proceed, as the defendant/appellant has also filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC, to set aside the ex parte decree, which is still pending. To this, Shri A. M. Naik, learned counsel for the appellant, stated that the appellant will not press the application and will get it dismissed, and submitted that in view of this statement, the appeal be heard; accordingly, the appeal is heard on merits.
4. Shri Naik placing reliance on AIR 1985 SC 736, M/s. Fomento Resorts and Hotels Ltd. v. Gustavo Ranato da Cruz Pinto contended that the trial Court acted illegally in not pronouncing the judgment according to the mandate of Order 20, Rule 5, C.P.C., as it has not stated its findings or decision, with reasons therefor on the issues framed, which was necessary even when the case proceeded ex parte against the defendant. It was also submitted that the trial Court exceeded its jurisdiction in not considering the application under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, as the proposed amendments were based on subsequent events, and thus acted illegally in rejecting the said application relying on Arjun Singh's case (supra), which does not prohibit the consideration of an application for amendment in a suit, where the case is reserved for judgment. Learned counsel pressed into service a decision of this Court in Badri Prasad Soni v. S. Kripal Singh, AIR 1981 MP 228.
5. Shri Chouhan supported the judgment of the trial Court and contended that in ex parte cases judgment remains cryptic and merely in the absence of an elaborate discussion, it cannot be said that the Court did not apply its judicial mind. Moreover, the conduct of the appellant is such that he is adopting delaying tactics, because of which the destitute wife and the children are driven to beggary; hence no interference in appeal is called for.
6. After hearing counsel, I am of the opinion that there is no option for me but to set aside the judgment and decree of the trial Court, as from the ex parte judgment it is not reflected that the trial Court for arriving at a decision has applied its mind on the issues so framed and stated findings therefor. Order 20, Rule 5, CPC lays down that in a suit in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reason therefor, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit. The Court has also not recorded its conclu-sion that in the peculiar facts, finding on one issue is sufficient for the decision of the suit, as ruled by the Supreme Court in M/s Fomento Resorts' case (supra), where several contentions factual and legal are urged and when there is scope of an appeal from'the decision of the Court, it is desirable to avoid delay and protraction of litigation, and the Court should, when dealing with any matter, dispose of all the points and not merely rest its decision on one single point.
7. In case of Smt. Swaran Lata Ghosh v. Harendra Kumar Banerjee, AIR 1969 SC 1167, while dealing a case of trial Court's decision without recording reasons has observed in para 6 thus at page 1169 :
A judicial determination of a disputed claim where substantial questions of law or fact arise is satisfactorily reached, only if it be supported by the most cogent reasons that suggest themselves to the Judge; a mere order deciding the matter in dispute not supported by reasons is no judgment at all. Recording of reasons in support of a decision of a disputed claim serves more purposes than one. It is intended to ensure that the decision is not the result of whim or fancy, but of a judicial approach to the matter in contest, it is also intended to ensure adjudication of the matter according to law and the procedure established by law. A party to the dispute is ordinarily entitled to know the grounds on which the Court has decided against him, and more so, when the judgment is subject to appeal. The Appellate Court will then have adequate material on which it may determine whether the facts are properly ascertained, the law has been correctly applied and the resultant decision is just.
8. Recently, this Court in case of Neema-bai v. Gyanbai, M.A. No. 93 of 1991, decided on 24-2-1993, a case against ex parte judgment and decree in a similar situation, where judgment was slipshod, following the case of Smt. Swaran Lata Ghosh (supra) has taken the view that it is always desirable that the Court should, as far as may be practicable, pronounce its opinion on all issues which have been raised in the case, it cannot avoid doing so on the ground that there is no evidence one way or the other.
9. The other contention of Shri Naik has also got a force. Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, does not bar an application for amendment in the pleadings even if the case is reserved for delivery of judgment, as would be evident from the language of the provision, which speaks that the Court may "at any stage of the proceedings" allow either party to alter or amend his pleadings in such manner and on such terms as may be just, and all such amendments shall be made as may be necessary for the purpose of determining the real questions in controversy between the parties.
10. This Court in Badri Prasad's case (supra) while considering a case of rejection of an application for amendment by the trial Court, which placed reliance on Arjun Singh's case (supra) as the case was fixed for pronouncement of the judgment has taken the view that the expression "at any stage of the proceedings" employed in Order 6, Rule 17 was not for interpretation before the Supreme Court, but the expression employed in Order 9, Rule 7 was considered, and as the two expressions, i.e., expression "at any stage of the proceedings" used in Order 6, Rule 17, and expression of Order 9, Rule 7, CPC "the Court has adjourned the hearing of the suit ex parte and the defendant at or before such hearing appears and assigns good cause", are distinct expressions and no analogy can be drawn from the interpretation of one for the interpretation of the other. The net of the power of the Court so far as amendment is concerned is wider in view of the expression "at any stage of proceedings" and not "hearing". Therefore, as the suit commences by presentation of the plaint under Order 4, Rule 1, CPC and it stands disposed of by the trial Court on the pronouncement of judgment under Order 20, Rule 3, CPC, the irresistible conclusion can safely be drawn, that delivery of judgment by the trial Court is a stage in the proceeding, and, therefore, because of the expression "at any stage of the proceedings" employed in Order 6, Rule 17, CPC, the Court is competent to deal with the application for amendment, as it keeps seisin over the case till judgment is pronounced, and does not become functus officio.
11. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, the upshot of the above discussion is that the trial Court was not right in holding that it had no jurisdiction to consider the application for amendment after the close of the case when it was reserved for judgment, besides, the judgment so recorded violates Order 20, Rule 5, CPC. As a result of above, now the case shall go back to the trial Court; the trial Court shall consider the two applications Under Order 6, Rule 17, CPC and pass appropriate orders thereon and then decide the suit afresh in accordance with law.
12. At this stage, Shri Naik submits that the defendant be allowed to produce his evidence, and for that the defendant shall not summon any witness. To end the litigation finally, it would also be proper in the interest of justice to allow an opportunity to defendant to produce all his evidence on a date to . be fixed by the trial Court, on payment of costs of Rs. 250/- (Two hundred and fifty), which shall be a condition precedent. It is made clear that the defendant shall not be allowed to summon any witness. In case the defendant fails to produce any witness, the Court shall proceed with the 'case and decide the same in accordance with law. As the proceedings for maintenance are pending since 1984 and the respondents are passing through the period of beggary, it is directed that the trial Court shall positively decide the suit before the Court goes for Summer Vacation. Parties to appear before the trial Court on 29th March, 1993, for that no notice shall be issued to the parties, as they have been noticed here. Let the record go down immediately.
13. At this stage, the appellant made a prayer that the amount deposited as per directions of this Court be ordered to be adjusted; for that, the appellant may make a prayer before the trial Court.
14. In the result, the appeal is allowed in the manner aforesaid; however, in the circumstances of the case, the appellant to pay costs of Rs. 500/- (Five hundred) to respondents, which shall be paid to the respondents on the date fixed. The stay order pased on 12-7-1990 stands vacated.