Reasoned Judgment With Points For Determination Necessary Even In Ex Parte Cases: Supreme Court
The Court noted that framing of issues is not mandatory yet, but omission that causes prejudice to parties can vitiate the trial.
The Supreme Court has held that even in ex parte civil proceedings, courts are bound to comply with the mandate of Order XX Rule 4 CPC by delivering a reasoned judgment that clearly identifies the “points for determination” and records findings with supporting reasons. In an appeal arising from a suit for specific performance dismissed ex parte by the trial court and affirmed by the Calcutta High Court, the Bench, resultantly, set aside both the judgments for non-compliance with this requirement.
The Court noted that even in the absence of a contesting defendant, a civil court must scrutinise pleadings, assess evidence, and articulate clear reasons addressing the core controversy. Where a plaintiff is non-suited on a ground for which no issue was framed and no opportunity to lead evidence was afforded, such omission constitutes material prejudice warranting interference, it noted.
A Bench comprising Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih observed, “…though the framing of issues in an ex parte suit is not mandatory by virtue of Order XIV Rule 6 of CPC, but the judgment must be in conformity with the provisions of the Code. Thus, Order XX Rule 4 of CPC comes into picture. The courts must determine ‘points for determination’, which are like issues, and answer them to resolve the matter of controversy between the parties”.
Advocate Jai Sahai Endlaw appeared for the appellant and the respondent remained unrepresented while Advocate Anup Kumar was appointed as the Amicus Curiae.
The dispute pertained to an agreement for sale dated January 27, 1977 concerning a flat in Kolkata. The appellant-plaintiff claimed to have paid substantial consideration and to have been placed in possession, alleging that the respondent-defendant failed to execute the conveyance despite repeated requests. The respondent remained unrepresented throughout the proceedings.
The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish the defendant’s title to the suit property, a finding upheld by the High Court in first appeal.
Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that no issue regarding the defendant’s title had been framed, and thus, the plaintiff had neither notice nor opportunity to lead evidence on that aspect.
The Court examined the statutory framework and precedent, reiterating that although Order XIV Rule 1(6) CPC dispenses with mandatory issue framing in ex parte cases, Order XX Rule 4 requires judgments to contain points for determination, decisions thereon, and reasons. It held that “points for determination” are akin to issues and are indispensable to a valid judgment. Even in ex parte proceedings, courts must not mechanically decree or dismiss suits but must engage with the substance of the dispute.
“Though framing of issues, as mentioned above, although, is not mandatory yet, if the omission to frame the same causes prejudice to the parties, then the same can vitiate the trial. The test for finding as to omission to frame the issues have caused prejudice to the parties or not can be laid down on the touchstone as to whether parties that go to trial had knowledge that (i) a particular question is in issue and (ii) had opportunity to lead evidence on that issue”, the Bench noted.
“In present case, all the three essentials are present. However, the suit was dismissed for lack of title in favour of the Respondent. No issues or points for determination were framed for the same. Appellant at no point was given an opportunity to lead evidence on the same. In the absence of any issues, and especially in the absence of any pleading contesting title of the Respondent, the Appellant could not be expected to prove such title in a suit for specific performance of Agreement to sell. Therefore, omission to frame issues has caused prejudice to the Appellant”, the Bench, thus, held.
Accordingly, the Court set aside the judgments of the trial court and the High Court, and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication. It directed the trial court to issue notice, complete pleadings, frame appropriate issues, permit evidence, and dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Cause Title: Pramod Shroff v. Mohan Singh Chopra (Neutral Citation: 2026 INSC 378)
Appellant: Jai Sahai Endlaw, Sagarika Kaul, Rishabh Singhle, Sujoy Chatterjee, AOR, Advocates.
Respondent: Anup Kumar, AOR, Neha Jaiswal, Advocates.