Ramendra Mohan Datta, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of an order of dismissal of an application made under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay and for setting aside the order of dismissal of the undefended suit when it appeared in the list of undefended suits.
(2.) The order of dismissal was passed by Ajay Kumar Basu, J. on August 24, 1977 without delivering any judgment or indicating any reason for such exercise of discretion in dismissing the application. We have repeatedly observed that in matters like this, when the Court exercises its discretion in allowing or dismissing or making no order on the application, the Court should be pleased to give its reasons so that the appeal Court would be in a position to appreciate whether or not the discretion was judicially exercised in the facts and circumstances of the case. Moreover, the provisions of Order 9, Rule 9 of the Civil P. C. provide, inter alia, that if the plaintiff in his application for set-ting aside the dismissal of the suit could satisfy the Court that there was sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing, it was imperative upon the Court to make an order setting aside the dismissal upon such terms as to costs or otherwise as it thinks fit. In our opinion, that would require the Court to give its rinding as to whether or not sufficient cause for non-appearance was made out. In case the Court makes a finding that such sufficient cause has not been made out, then only the Court would be in a position to dismiss such an application but until that finding is arrived at and if on the contrary there was sufficient cause for non-appearance, the Court would be bound to make an order setting aside the dismissal. In such circumstances there is no question of exercising any option or discretion in the matter. That being the position, in our opinion, the learned Judge of the Court below could not have passed such an order without giving its finding as to whether or not it was satisfied that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance when the suit was called on for hearing.
(3.) We, accordingly, think that the appeal Court under the circumstances ought to go into the merits of the application and find out whether the discretion has been judicially exercised or not.;