“6. The only ground raised by the appellant is that the trial court passed the exparte decree without giving detailed reason or appreciating The evidence adduced by the plaintiff. The learned counsel for the appellant/defendant submitted that the respondent/plaintiff herein filed the suit before the Additional District Munsif Court for permanent injunction. The trial court passed the exparte decree against the appellant/defendant. Challenging the judgment and decree passed by the trial court, the appellant/defendant preferred an appeal before the Sub Court by raising a ground that the trial court failed to record reasons in the judgment for granting relief in favour of the plaintiff. According to the learned counsel for the appellant/defendant, the trial court has simply decreed the suit, by recording a finding that on the basis of the evidence of P.W.1 and the documents marked as Ex.A1 to A7, the plaintiff has proved the case. In the said judgment, except the aforesaid fact, there is no discussion or appreciation of evidence adduced by the plaintiff nor any reason in the judgment for granting relief in favour of the plaintiff. According to the learned Senior counsel for the appellant/defendant, in the light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court as well as this court, the settled legal principles of law is that judgment must contain the bare minimum facts, the point for determination, evidence adduced and the evidence which are basis for deciding the issues. It is the further contention of the learned Senior counsel that as per the definition under Section 2(9) of C.P.C., the judgment means there must be adjudication of dispute. The judgment should contain brief summary. Therefore, the present judgment passed by the trial court is cryptic and an unreasoned judgment. Hence, the judgment
