The Bombay High Court has reaffirmed a foundational principle of civil procedure: trial courts must adjudicate every prayer raised in a suit, regardless of whether the primary relief is granted or denied. This judgment clarifies that judicial omission of alternative claims constitutes a jurisdictional error warranting remand, even in ex parte proceedings.
Background & Facts
The Dispute
The plaintiff, Rajesh Gulabchand Sheth, filed a special civil suit seeking declaration that a conveyance deed dated 8 December 2014, executed in favor of the defendants, was null and void. The basis for this claim was that the consideration for the conveyance - a cheque for Rs. 1,18,29,142 - was dishonored by the bank. The plaintiff alleged that the transaction was void ab initio due to non-payment.
Procedural History
- 2019: Original suit filed before Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pune
- March 2019: Trial Court dismissed the suit, addressing only the prayer for declaration of nullity
- 2019: Plaintiff filed First Appeal No. 1426 of 2019 before the Bombay High Court
- 2026: Appeal heard ex parte as defendants failed to appear despite service
Relief Sought
The plaintiff sought two distinct reliefs:
- Primary: Declaration that the conveyance deed is null and void
- Alternative: Monetary compensation of Rs. 1,18,29,142 plus 18% per annum interest
The alternative prayers are explicitly detailed in paragraphs 21(i) and 21(j) of the plaint.
The Legal Issue
The central question was whether a trial court may dismiss a suit entirely without adjudicating alternative prayers for monetary relief, even when those prayers are clearly pleaded and not withdrawn.
Arguments Presented
For the Appellant
The appellant’s counsel argued that the Trial Court committed a material error by failing to examine the alternative claim for compensation. Reliance was placed on Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which mandates courts to adjudicate all claims properly before them. The appellant emphasized that no express waiver of the alternative relief was recorded, and judicial silence on a pleaded claim violates the principle of audi alteram partem.
For the Respondent
No arguments were presented by the respondents, as they did not appear before the Trial Court or the High Court. The appeal proceeded ex parte.
The Court's Analysis
The Court observed that the Trial Court’s judgment addressed only the declaratory relief and made no reference to the alternative claim for monetary compensation. The judgment did not record any abandonment, withdrawal, or compromise of the alternative prayers.
"The Trial Court cannot be permitted to ignore a prayer for relief merely because it finds the main prayer unsustainable. The plaintiff is entitled to have all his claims examined on merit."
The Court held that alternative prayers are not subsidiary but independent claims that must be adjudicated. Even if the main prayer fails, the court retains jurisdiction to determine whether the alternative claim is established. Failure to do so renders the judgment incomplete and procedurally defective.
The Court further noted that the plaintiff had not abandoned the alternative claim, nor had the Trial Court recorded any such waiver. In the absence of such a record, the omission was not merely procedural but substantive, affecting the rights of the parties.
The Court rejected the notion that dismissal of the main prayer implied rejection of all other claims. It emphasized that each prayer must be separately evaluated based on its own evidentiary and legal foundation.
The Verdict
The appellant succeeded. The Bombay High Court held that trial courts must adjudicate all pleaded prayers, including alternative reliefs. The impugned judgment was remanded to the Trial Court solely for the purpose of deciding the alternative claims for monetary compensation and interest.
What This Means For Similar Cases
Alternative Relief Cannot Be Ignored
- Practitioners must ensure all alternative prayers are explicitly pleaded and preserved in pleadings
- Courts cannot assume waiver of alternative claims absent clear record of abandonment
- Failure to adjudicate alternative relief is grounds for remand, even if main prayer is dismissed
Ex Parte Proceedings Do Not Excuse Judicial Omission
- Even in ex parte cases, courts have a duty to examine all pleaded claims
- Absence of defense does not absolve the court of its obligation to evaluate all reliefs sought
- Judges must record reasons for rejecting or accepting each prayer, not just the primary one
Documentation of Waiver Is Essential
- If a party intends to withdraw an alternative claim, it must be done on record in writing or orally with judicial acknowledgment
- Judicial orders must reflect explicit consideration of every prayer - silence is not consent
- Practitioners should request specific findings on alternative reliefs during final arguments
