- (1.) THOUGH the matter is posted for admission, since the scope of enquiry is very limited, with the consent of both the Learned Counsel, the same is taken up for disposal.
(2.) THIS is adefendants's appeal challenging the decree dated 14-7-2006 passed in O. S. No. 1421/2003 decreeing the suit of the respondent/plaintiff.
(3.) THE respondent/ plaintiff has filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs. 4,39,583/- along with interest. The Trial Court has decreed the suit only on the ground that the defendant has not filed his written statement in view of Order VIII Rule 5 CPC. It is to be noted that having regard to the provisions of Order XII Rule 6, Order V Rule 8 and Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC, the Court cannot act blindly even if written statement is not filed as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme court in the Case of SALEM ADVOCATE BAR ASSOCIATION, tamilnadu vs UNION OF INDIA. The provisions of Order viii Rule 5 of CPC is a directory provision and not mandatory. In a case where written statement is not filed, the Court should be cautions in proceeding under Order VIII of CPC before passing the judgment against the defendant and it must see that even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated as having been admitted, whether it is possible to pass the judgment in favour of the plaintiff. It is subjective satisfaction of the Court and not blind discretion. The Trial Court in the present case without satisfying itself has simply decreed the suit holding as follows: "i have gone through the plaint averments and the documents and the affidavit evidence of the plaintiff. By accepting the plaint advertments and the documents, the suit deserves to be decreed against the defendant. ";