The Supreme Court has reaffirmed that a civil court cannot render a valid judgment in an ex parte suit without identifying and addressing the points for determination, regardless of the defendant’s absence. This ruling clarifies a critical procedural safeguard under the Code of Civil Procedure, ensuring that even defaulting parties’ rights are protected through judicial adherence to statutory mandates.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The appellant, Pramod Shroff, filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 27.01.1977 concerning Flat No. 61 in Shalimar Apartments, 42-B, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017, along with a car parking space. The respondent, Mohan Singh Chopra, was the vendor under the agreement. The appellant paid ₹90,000 out of the agreed consideration of ₹95,000 and was handed over possession of the property and original title documents. The balance of ₹5,000 was to be paid upon execution of the conveyance deed, which the respondent repeatedly refused to execute despite numerous requests.
Key Facts
- The suit property was originally leased for 75 years by the owner to Khimjis, who later partnered with others under Gulmohar Properties to construct and sell flats.
- Gulmohar Properties executed an agreement to sell the flat to the Balwanis, who assigned their rights to the respondent via a tripartite registered sale deed.
- The agreement to sell dated 27.01.1977 was duly registered and contained a clause for assignment.
- The appellant took physical possession of the flat in 1977 and has remained in continuous possession since.
- The appellant made repeated written and verbal requests to the respondent to execute the conveyance deed between 1977 and 2007.
- No written statement was filed by the respondent in any court below.
- The trial court dismissed the suit on 26.10.2017, holding that the appellant failed to prove the respondent’s title.
- The High Court dismissed the first appeal on 21.01.2025, affirming the trial court’s order.
Procedural History
- 27.01.1977: Agreement to sell executed between appellant and respondent.
- 1977 onwards: Appellant in possession; repeated requests for conveyance deed.
- 2007: Suit for specific performance filed before City Civil Court, Calcutta.
- 26.10.2017: Trial court dismissed suit ex parte, holding appellant failed to prove respondent’s title.
- 2018: First Appeal (F.A.T. No. 47 of 2018) filed before Calcutta High Court.
- 21.01.2025: High Court dismissed appeal, upholding trial court’s decree.
- 20.07.2025: Special Leave Petition (SLP (C) No. 20779 of 2025) filed before Supreme Court.
- 05.12.2025: Amicus Curiae appointed by Supreme Court to assist in absence of respondent.
- 16.04.2026: Supreme Court delivered judgment.
The Parties' Positions
Appellant’s Position: The suit was dismissed without framing any issue regarding the respondent’s title. The appellant was never put on notice that title was in dispute. Under Order XIV Rule 6 CPC, framing of issues is not mandatory in ex parte suits, but the judgment must still contain points for determination under Order XX Rule 4. The trial court erred in shifting the burden of proving title to the plaintiff without any pleading or notice.
Respondent’s Position: The respondent did not appear before any court, file any written statement, or submit any arguments. He remained unrepresented throughout the proceedings, even after being personally contacted by the Amicus Curiae.
Relief Sought
The appellant sought: (i) setting aside the impugned judgments of the High Court and trial court; (ii) remand of the suit for fresh adjudication with proper framing of issues; (iii) direction to the trial court to proceed expeditiously given the suit’s long pendency since 2007.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether the absence of formal framing of issues in an ex parte civil suit vitiates the judgment, and whether a decree can be sustained under Order XX Rule 4 of the CPC if the court fails to identify and address the points for determination, particularly when the plaintiff is denied opportunity to prove a fact not pleaded by the defendant.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel relied on Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani, and Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad to argue that even in ex parte suits, the court must articulate the points for determination and answer them. The trial court’s reliance on the respondent’s title - never pleaded or contested - constituted a fundamental procedural error. The appellant could not be expected to prove a fact that was neither alleged nor framed as an issue. The omission caused prejudice and rendered the judgment defective under Section 2(9) of the CPC.
For the Respondent
The respondent did not appear or file any submissions. The Amicus Curiae, appointed by the Court, supported the appellant’s position, emphasizing that judicial fairness requires adherence to procedural norms even in default, to prevent arbitrary adjudication.
The Court's Analysis
The Supreme Court undertook a detailed examination of Order XIV Rule 6 and Order XX Rule 4 of the CPC. While acknowledging that framing of issues is not mandatory when the defendant does not appear, the Court held that this does not absolve the court of its duty to deliver a judgment that complies with Section 2(9) and Order XX Rule 4.
"Whether it is a case which is contested by the defendants by filing a written statement, or a case which proceeds ex parte and is ultimately decided as an ex parte case, or is a case in which the written statement is not filed and the case is decided under Order VIII Rule 10, the court has to write a judgment which must be in conformity with the provisions of the Code or at least set out the reasoning by which the controversy is resolved."
The Court emphasized that the phrase "points for determination" in Order XX Rule 4 is the functional equivalent of issues framed under Order XIV. These points must reflect the actual controversy between the parties. In this case, the trial court dismissed the suit on the ground of the respondent’s title, yet no pleading by the respondent raised any defect in title. The appellant had no notice that title was in issue and thus no opportunity to lead evidence on it.
The Court distinguished Sayeda Akhtar v. Abdul Ahad, where parties were aware of the issue and led evidence, from the present case where the issue was judicially introduced without notice. The Court held that such a procedural deviation caused material prejudice and rendered the judgment legally unsustainable.
The Court further cited Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha to reaffirm that in a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must prove: (i) a valid contract, (ii) breach by the defendant, and (iii) readiness and willingness to perform. All three were established here. The absence of title was not a pleaded defense and could not be raised sua sponte to defeat the claim.
The Verdict
The appeal was allowed. The Supreme Court set aside the judgments of the trial court dated 26.10.2017 and the High Court dated 21.01.2025. The matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh adjudication. The appellant shall appear before the trial court on 04.05.2026. The trial court shall issue notice to the respondent, permit completion of pleadings, frame issues, and afford both parties an opportunity to lead evidence. The court is directed to decide the suit at the earliest, considering its pendency since 2007. There shall be no order as to costs.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Procedural Compliance Is Non-Negotiable
- Practitioners must now argue that any ex parte decree lacking points for determination is void ab initio under Order XX Rule 4 CPC.
- Courts cannot rely on unpleaded facts to dismiss suits, even if the defendant is absent.
- A plaintiff’s failure to prove an unpleaded issue cannot be grounds for dismissal.
Burden of Proof Cannot Be Shifted Arbitrarily
- The burden to prove title or any other fact lies with the party alleging it.
- If the defendant does not plead a defect in title, the plaintiff cannot be required to disprove it.
- Judges must confine their findings to issues raised by pleadings or properly framed.
Remedy for Long-Pending Suits
- Courts must prioritize remanded suits with long delays, as emphasized by the Supreme Court’s directive to decide "at the earliest."
- Practitioners may cite this judgment to seek expedited hearings in similar delayed civil suits.
