Points of Determination should be framed even in Ex Parte Suit - Supreme Court
A Division
Bench of Supreme Court directed for the remand to the trial Court for fresh
consideration of the suit of specific performance for agreement to sell according
to the provision of Order XX Rule 4 of CPC and set aside judgment and decree of
trial Court and High Court of Calcutta [
This appeal
by the appellant, Pramod Shroff, involves a question on the procedural
obligations of a civil Court while adjudicating a suit ex parte, and more
particularly, whether the absence of formal framing of issues vitiates such
proceedings, and what constitutes a legally sustainable judgment in such
circumstances.
CASE FACTS
The
cause of action was that the original owner of the property executed a 75 years
lease in favour of the Khimjis. Khimjis constructed a building on the said
property by the name ‘Shalimar Apartment’. During construction, the Khimjis
entered into a partnership with other persons under the name and style of
Gulmohar Properties to complete the construction and sell out the flats therein
on ownership basis along with a car parking space, a suit property.
Later,
Gulmohar Properties executed an agreement for sale in relation to the suit
property, in favour of the Balwanis, with a clause for assignment.
Pursuant
to the assignment clause, the Balwanis transferred the property to Mohan Singh Chopra,
respondent-defendant by a tripartite registered sale deed, in which Gulmohar
Properties, the Balwanis and the Respondent were signatories.
On 27.01.1977,
respondent-defendant, Mohan Singh Chopra and
Pramod Shroff, plaintiff-appellant executed an agreement for sale in
consideration of Rs. 95,000/- out of which 90,000/- was paid with an
undertaking that balance of Rs. 5000/- would be paid on the date of execution
of Deed of Conveyance and presentation of the same before the Registrar of
Assurance. Appellant was also put into the possession of the suit property. Respondent
also handed over the original documents, indenture, Title Deeds, etc. to the
appellant.
The plaintiff-appellant,
on various occasions requested to execute the Conveyance Deed, but the
defendant-respondent did not pay heed.
The plaintiff-appellant
filed a suit for specific performance for agreement to sell against the
respondent-defendant in relation to the suit property with a grievance that
despite repeated requests respondent neither accepted balance amount of Rs.
5000/- nor executed Deed of Conveyance in his favour.
The suit
for specific performance was rejected both by civil Court as well as High Court
on the ground that appellant failed to prove the title of the respondent in the
suit property.
SUBMISSIONS
The counsel for
appellant submitted that since no issue qua the title of the respondent was
framed, the onus to prove the same did not fall on the appellant and
the appellant was not put to notice of the said issue and therefore could not
be expected to lead evidence in support of the same.
It was
also submitted, both the courts below have disregarded the procedure prescribed
i.e., for issues to be framed before trial, as the same puts the parties to
notice of the facts that are required to be proved in a given case.
QUESTION RAISED
This submission of the appellant, compelled the
Supreme Court to delve into statutory
provisions as well as the existing jurisprudence as developed by top Court while
dealing with question raised.
The questions are –
ü What
are the essential requirements of a valid judgment in an ex parte civil suit?
ü Whether
the courts below have discharged their obligation in accordance with law while
deciding the suit ex parte?
ANALYSIS
Order
XIV Rule 1(6) provides that framing of issues is not required where the
defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes no defence.
Order XX Rule 4(2)
states that judgments of Courts shall contain a concise statement of the case,
the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such
decision.
The
top Court cited the case of Makhan Lal Bangal vs. Manas Bhunia and
Others(2001) while stressing upon the importance of framing of issues
held it as an imperative stage in any civil proceedings as it narrows down the
scope of trial by separating wheat from the chaff. Therefore, the real dispute
between the parties is determined and the conflict between the parties is
narrowed. The petition may be disposed of at the first hearing if it appears
that the parties are not at issue on any material question of law or of fact
and the Court may at once pronounce the judgment.
Further,
in Ramesh
Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani (2003), it has been opined that the
burden of proof on the Plaintiff is not too heavy in ex parte civil suits. The
Plaintiff, however, must show prima-facie proof qua the existence of relevant facts and circumstances out of
which the cause of action has arisen.
It
held that in a case which has proceeded ex parte, the court is not bound to
frame issues under Order XIV and deliver the judgment on every issue as
required by Order XX Rule 5. Yet the trial court should scrutinize the
available pleadings and documents, consider the evidence adduced, and would do
well to frame the “points for determination” and proceed to construct the ex
parte judgment dealing with the points at issue one by one.
Furthermore,
Supreme Court referred to case of Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad (2015) wherein
it was held that in case the Defendant has been proceeded against ex parte, it
is the duty of the court to pass the decree only after ascertaining the factual
and legal veracity of the claim of the Plaintiff.
In this
case, Supreme court placed emphasis on Order XX Rule 4(2) which says that a
judgment ‘shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for
determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision.
It should be a
self-contained document from which it should appear as to what were the facts
of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the
court and in what manner.
The points for
determination in a judgment are essentially the legal and factual issues the
court must resolve. A judgment that omits discussion of issues in dispute is
defective – Court reiterated.
In practice, the trial Court
first frame issues after examination of pleadings, the judgment then recites
these as points for determination and answers them. These points focus judgment
on the exact matters in controversy between parties – Court pointed out.
The judgment, after listing points of determination guides
the parties and the Appellate Court to see what questions were in contest. The Court
must give its finding on each points.
Under Order XX Rule 5 CPC, if issues have been framed in
the suit, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with reasons, upon
each separate issue, unless deciding one issue resolve the suit. Thus, points
of determination ensures that every controverted issue is addressed – Supreme Court
reiterated.
The judgment which
has not even stated the points for determination and given the finding thereon,
is not a judgment within the meaning of Section 2(9) of CPC.
Points for determination are the
court’s restatement of the disputed questions (issues) that were placed before
it, and the judgment must answer each. They serve to concentrate the court’s
reasoning and ensure completeness of adjudication – Court emphasized.
Even
when a defendant fails to appear or file a written statement, the Court cannot
dispense with the points for determination. In case of default or ex parte
suit, the Court should identify the legal points and give a reasoned answer
under Order VIII Rule 10.
The Supreme
Court said simply granting a decree on default is not enough under Section 2(9)
of CPC and doing so would be material irregularity. Thus points should be
framed and addressed regardless of default.
Though
framing of issues, is not mandatory under Order XIV Rule 6 yet, if the omission
to frame the same causes prejudice to the parties then, the same can vitiate
the trial. Thus Order XX Rule 4 comes into picture in this situation.
The courts must determine “points for
determination”, which are like issues, and answer them to resolve the matter of
controversy between the parties – Court viewed.
The Apex
Court laid down test to determine
whether the omission to frame the issues have caused prejudice to the parties
or not. The test is 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.
DECISION
On
the basis of previous judgment, Court said present case which is controversy
regarding suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, it is important
there must be valid contract and the defendant committed breach and readiness
and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract. All three
essentials are present in the case of appellant.
Only ground
for dismissal by both the courts below was lack of proving title in favour of
the respondent. No issues or points for determination were framed for the same.
Therefore,
according to Supreme Court, 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. Hence omission to frame
issues has caused prejudice to the appellant.
On the
basis of the findings, the Supreme Court set aside the judgment and decree of
both the courts below because of lack of requirements of a judgment under Order
XX Rule 4 and Section 2(9) of CPC.
The Hon’ble
Court directed the matter to be remanded to the trial Court for fresh
consideration and decision according to the provisions provided in CPC and decide the same at the earliest.
Before:
Date of judgment: 16 April, 2026
Click to download/read judgment
You may also Read: Executing Court has no jurisdiction to go beyond the decree - Supreme Court
0 Comments