As laid down in Man Kaur (dead) by LRs v.
Hartar Singh Sangha (2010) 10 SCC 512, there must be a valid
contract; that defendant committed breach of
and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to
perform his part of contract. {Para 30}
31. 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.
32. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the
trial court does not fulfil the requirements of a
judgment as provided for under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. The judgments and decree of
both the courts below are, therefore, not in
accordance with law and thus, set-aside.
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. OF 2026
PRAMOD SHROFF Vs MOHAN SINGH CHOPRA
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.
Citation: 2026 INSC 378
1. Leave granted.
2. The present appeal raises an important
question touching upon 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.
3. The appeal before the High Court was heard ex
parte. The Respondent, despite service, chose
not to enter appearance before the courts below
or before this Court. On 05.12.2025, Mr. Anup
Kumar, learned Counsel, who was present in
the Court was appointed as Amicus Curiae to
assist this Court in this matter. He was directed
to get in touch with Respondent directly in
writing, apprise him about pendency of present
appeal, his right to engage a counsel of his
choice and his right of being represented
through a legal aid counsel. Having done so, still
the Respondent remains unrepresented.
4. The instant appeal assails the judgment and
order dated 21.01.2025 (hereinafter referred as
“Impugned Judgment”) passed by the High
Court of Calcutta (hereinafter referred as “High
Court”), whereby it dismissed the F.A.T No. 47
of 2018 filed by the Appellant (Plaintiff) herein
and affirmed the judgment and decree dated
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.20779/2025 Page 3 of 18
26.10.2017 passed by the City Civil Court at
Calcutta (hereinafter referred as “trial court”),
vide which suit filed by the Appellant for specific
performance for agreement to sell was
dismissed ex parte.
5. The brief facts are that the original owner of the
property executed a 75 years lease in favour of
the Khimjis. Thereafter, Khimjis constructed a
building on the said property by the name of
“Shalimar Apartments”. 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 including, Flat No. 61 in the
Shalimar Apartments lying and situate at 42-B,
Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata-700017, along
with a car parking space (hereinafter referred as
“the suit property”).
6. Later, Gulmohar Properties executed an
agreement for sale in relation to the suit
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.20779/2025 Page 4 of 18
property, in favour of the Balwanis, with a
clause for assignment.
7. Pursuant to 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.
8. On 27.01.1977, agreement for sale relating to
suit property was executed between Respondent
as Vendor and Appellant as Vendee in
consideration of ₹95,000/- out of which
₹90,000/- was paid with an undertaking that
balance of ₹5,000/- 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. On
various occasions request was made to the
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.20779/2025 Page 5 of 18
Respondent to execute the Conveyance Deed by
the Appellant but the same did not fructify.
9. The Appellant, with a grievance that despite
repeated requests Respondent neither accepted
balance amount of ₹5,000/- nor executed Deed
of Conveyance in his favour, filed a suit for
specific performance for agreement to sell dated
27.01.1977 against the Respondent (Defendant)
in relation to the suit property.
10. The courts below rejected the claim of the
Appellant on the ground that Appellant failed to
prove the title of the Respondent in the suit
property.
11. 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. Both the Courts below have
disregarded the procedure prescribed i.e., for
issues to be framed before trial, as the same
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.20779/2025 Page 6 of 18
puts the parties to notice of the facts that are
required to be proved in a given case.
12. Having heard the learned Counsel for the
Appellant, learned Amicus Curiae, and
considering the written submissions filed by the
Appellant and learned Amicus Curiae, we find it
apposite that prior to undertaking and
answering the aforementioned submissions as
raised, it is imperative to delve into the statutory
provisions as well as the existing jurisprudence
as developed by this Court while dealing with
such provisions relatable to what are the
essential requirements of a valid judgment in an
ex parte civil suit? And whether the courts below
have discharged their obligation in accordance
with law while deciding the suit ex parte?
13. Sub-section 9 of the section 2 of the Civil
Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred as
“CPC”) provides that "judgment" means the
statement given by the Judge of the grounds of
a decree or order.
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.20779/2025 Page 7 of 18
14. Section 2(2) of the CPC provides that "decree"
means the formal expression of an adjudication
which, so far as regards the court expressing it,
conclusively determines the rights of the parties
with regard to all or any of the matters in
controversy in the suit and may be either
preliminary or final.
15. Order XIV Rule 1(6) explicitly provides that
framing of issues is not required where the
defendant at the first hearing of the suit makes
no defense.
16. 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.
“ORDER XX
4. Judgments of Small Cause Courts.—(1)
Judgments of a Court of Small Causes need not
contain more than the points for determination
and the decision thereon.
(2) Judgments of other Courts.—Judgments of
other Courts shall contain a concise statement
of the case, the points for determination, the
decision thereon, and the reasons for such
decision.”
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.20779/2025 Page 8 of 18
17. Though, the framing of issues where defendant
does not present a defense is not mandated, still
the importance of framing of issues cannot be
underscored. This Court in the case of Makhan
Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia and Others1,
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.
18. Further, in Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v.
Anil Panjwani2, 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
1 (2001) 2 SCC 652
2 (2003) 7 SCC 350
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.20779/2025 Page 9 of 18
of relevant facts and circumstances out of which
the cause of action has arisen. Therefore,
evincing that the court proceeds to record
evidence of the Plaintiff qua the cause of action
and accordingly decrees the suit. Further, 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.
19. Furthermore, this Court in Maya Devi v. Lalta
Prasad3, has 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.
3 (2015) 5 SCC 588
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.20779/2025 Page 10 of 18
20. This Court while considering the essential
requirements of a judgment in Balraj Taneja
and Another v. Sunil Madan and Another4
has held that Judgment as defined in Section
2(9) of the CPC means the statement given by
the Judge of the grounds for a decree or order.
What a judgment should contain is indicated in
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.
“Points for Determination” – Meaning and Role
21. The points for determination in a judgment are
essentially the legal and factual issues the court
must resolve. They correspond to
the issues framed during trial (Order XIV), but
4 (1999) 8 SCC 396
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.20779/2025 Page 11 of 18
in the judgment they are stated as the point(s)
to be decided. In Rameshwar Dayal v. Banda
(dead) through his LRs and Another5, the
Apex Court explained that ‘points for
determination’ in Rule 4(1) are obviously
nothing but ‘issues’ contemplated by Rules 1
and 3 of Order XIV. In practice, the trial court
first frames issues (points of controversy) after
examination of pleadings, the judgment then
recites these as “points for determination” and
answers them. These points focus the judgment
on the exact matters in controversy between the
parties. By explicitly listing points, the
judgment guides the parties and the Appellate
court to see what questions were in contest. The
court must give its finding on each point. Order
XX Rule 5 CPC further reinforces this: 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
resolves the suit. Thus, points for determination
ensure that every controverted issue is
5 (1993) 1 SCC 531
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.20779/2025 Page 12 of 18
addressed. A judgment that omits discussion of
issues in dispute is defective. It was held that a
Small Causes Court judgment which has not
even stated the points for determination and
given a finding thereon, is obviously not a
judgment within the meaning of Section 2(9) of
CPC.
22. 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.
23. Even when a defendant fails to appear or file a
written statement, the court cannot dispense
with the points for determination altogether.
In Balraj Taneja (supra), it was argued that if
no written statement is filed the facts as set out
in the plaint would be deemed to be admitted
and thus, the court need not indicate the points.
This Court while rejecting this submission held
that ‘whether it is a case which is contested by
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.20779/2025 Page 13 of 18
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’. In other words, even in
default or ex parte suits, the court should
identify the legal points (even if obvious) and
give a reasoned answer. Simply granting a
decree on default is not enough under Section
2(9) of CPC doing so would be a “material
irregularity”. Thus, points should be framed (or
recited from existing pleadings) and addressed
regardless of default.
24. The true scope for framing issues is that
evidence let in on issue on which the parties
actually went to trial should not be the
foundation for decision of another and different
issue, which was not present to the minds of the
parties and on which they had no opportunity
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.20779/2025 Page 14 of 18
of adducing evidence. But that rule has no
application to a case where the parties go to a
trial with knowledge that a particular question
is in issue, though no specific issue has been
framed thereon and adduce evidence relating
thereto. Please refer to Nagubai Ammal and
Others v. B. Shama Rao and Others6.
25. In Sayeda Akhtar v. Abdul Ahad7, it was held
that omission to frame an important issue may
sometimes cause prejudice to parties resulting
in failure to lead evidence on the point. But
where the parties were not only aware of the
point in controversy but also led evidence and
advanced their submissions, this Court held
that the High Court was not justified in
interfering with the finding of facts of the courts
below.
26. In the light of the above legal precedents, it can
be said that 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
6 (1956) 1 SCC 698
7 (2003) 7 SCC 52
C.A. @ SLP (C) No.20779/2025 Page 15 of 18
conformity with the provisions of the Code.
Thus, Order XX Rule 4 of CPC comes into
picture.
27. The courts must determine “points for
determination”, which are like issues, and
answer them to resolve the matter of
controversy between the parties.
28. 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.
29. In the present case, the controversy is regarding
suit for specific performance of an agreement to
sell, therefore, it is important to consider as to
what are the key essentials in a suit for specific
performance that a Plaintiff must prove to
succeed.
30. As laid down in Man Kaur (dead) by LRs v.
Hartar Singh Sangha (2010) 10 SCC 512, there must be a valid
contract; that defendant committed breach of
and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to
perform his part of contract.
31. 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.
32. Hence, the judgment and decree passed by the
trial court does not fulfil the requirements of a
judgment as provided for under the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908. The judgments and decree of
both the courts below are, therefore, not in
accordance with law and thus, set-aside.
33. As a result;
i) Matter shall stand remanded to the trial
court for fresh consideration and decision.
ii) The Appellant-Plaintiff shall appear before
the trial court on 04.05.2026.
iii) Trial court shall issue notice on the
Respondent and grant time for completion
of pleadings.
iv) The court shall frame issues and accord
opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.
v) The court shall proceed to decide the same
at the earliest keeping in view the fact that
the suit is of the year 2007.
34. The Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
35. There shall be no order as to cost.
36. Pending application(s), if any, also stands
disposed of.
37. We acknowledge and appreciate the
constructive assistance rendered by the learned
Amicus Curiae and the learned Counsel for the
Appellant to this Court.
.……..………..……………………..J.
[ SANJAY KAROL ]
.……..………..……………………..J.
[ AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 16, 2026.
No comments:
Post a Comment