New Delhi: The Supreme Court has held that while framing of issues in an ex parte civil suit is not mandatory, courts are nevertheless obligated to identify and adjudicate the “points for determination” and deliver a reasoned judgment in conformity with the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
A bench of Justices Sanjay Karol and AG Masih set aside concurrent findings of the trial court and the Calcutta High Court, which had dismissed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell, holding that the proceedings stood vitiated due to failure to frame issues and consequent prejudice to the plaintiff.
The apex court was dealing with a civil appeal filed by Pramod Shroff challenging the dismissal of his suit seeking specific performance of a 1977 agreement to sell a flat in Kolkata.
Clarifying the legal position, the Justice Karol-led Bench said: “Though the framing of issues where the defendant does not present a defence is not mandated, still the importance of framing of issues cannot be underscored.”
It added that even in ex parte proceedings, courts must structure their judgments around clearly defined questions requiring adjudication.
“The court should identify the ‘points for determination’and proceed to construct the ex parte judgment dealing with the points at issue one by one,” the apex court observed.
The Supreme Court said that a valid judgment must reflect compliance with Order XX Rule 4(2) CPC, which requires a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision.
“Whether it is a case which is contested… or a case which proceeds ex parte… the court has to write a judgment which must be in conformity with the provisions of the Code,” it said, cautioning that failure to do so would amount to a “material irregularity”.
In the present case, the suit was dismissed by the trial court on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish the defendant’s title over the property, despite no issue having been framed on that aspect.
Accepting the appellant’s contention, the apex court said that the absence of such an issue deprived the plaintiff of an opportunity to lead evidence.
“In the absence of any issues, and especially in the absence of any pleading contesting title… the Appellant could not be expected to prove such title,” the judgment said, adding that omission to frame issues had caused prejudice to the plaintiff.
The Justice Karol-led Bench laid down that while omission to frame issues does not automatically vitiate proceedings, the test is whether the parties were aware that a particular question was in issue and had an opportunity to adduce evidence on it.
“Though framing of issues… is not mandatory, if the omission to frame the same causes prejudice to the parties, then the same can vitiate the trial,” it held.
Setting aside the judgments of the courts below, the Supreme Court remanded the matter to the trial court for fresh consideration. It directed that issues be framed, parties be given an opportunity to complete pleadings and lead evidence, and the suit be decided expeditiously, noting that the matter dates back to 2007.
“The court shall frame issues and accord opportunity to the parties to lead evidence… and proceed to decide the same at the earliest,” the bench directed.
(IANS)
