LI Network
Published on: January 15, 2024 at 11:40 IST
In a recent ruling, the Supreme Court has overturned a civil suit decree, highlighting that a Court cannot render judgment solely based on a defendant’s default in submitting a written statement if the plaintiff fails to substantiate their case.
A panel of Justices comprising BR Gavai, Dipankar Datta, and Aravind Kumar asserted that the failure of a defendant to file a written statement within the stipulated time does not automatically lead to a judgment against them. Instead, the onus remains on the plaintiff to provide evidence substantiating their claims.
Referring to Order 8, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the Court underscored the provision’s permissive nature. The rule states that if a party fails to present a required written statement within the allotted time, the court may either pronounce judgment against them or make any other suitable order related to the suit.
The Court clarified that the use of “shall” in Rule 10 does not mandate the court to automatically opt for the first alternative, i.e., pronouncing judgment. The second alternative, allowing the court to make any appropriate order, is equally applicable. The judgment emphasized that if the first alternative were made mandatory, the second alternative would lose its significance.
The ruling emphasized the importance of a plaintiff proving their case through evidence, stating, “…mere failure or neglect of a defendant to file a written statement controverting the pleaded facts in the plaint, in all cases, may not entitle him to a judgment in his favor unless by adducing evidence he proves his case/claim.”
The case in question involved the trial court’s judgment against Samiullah for not submitting a written statement within the specified time.
The Supreme Court, drawing on its previous judgment in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, highlighted that passing judgment against a defendant who has not filed a written statement is only appropriate when there are no facts requiring proof due to deemed admission. However, if the plaint suggests disputed questions of fact, it is unsafe for the court to pass judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove the facts.
The Court concluded by urging caution in invoking Order 8, Rule 10, especially in cases with multiple defendants. It emphasized that the power under Rule 10 should be exercised carefully, considering circumstances and potential complications arising from contradictory or inconsistent decrees.
Case Title: ASMA LATEEF & ANR. V. SHABBIR AHMAD & ORS.