LI Network
Published on: January 13, 2024 at 17:10 IST
In a significant ruling, the Supreme Court overturned a civil suit decree, asserting that a court cannot pass judgment solely on a defendant’s default in filing a written statement if the plaintiff fails to substantiate their case.
A bench comprising Justices BR Gavai, Dipankar Datta, and Aravind Kumar emphasized that the failure of the defendant to file a written statement within the stipulated time does not automatically lead to a judgment against them. The plaintiff must fulfill their obligation to prove the case through the presentation of evidence.
Referring to Order 8, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), the Court clarified the alternatives available: the Court can either pronounce judgment against the defendant or make an appropriate order related to the suit. The court underscored that the use of “shall” in Rule 10 does not make the first alternative mandatory in every case.
The judgment, authored by Justice Datta, pointed out that adherence to the first alternative would relieve the plaintiff of the obligation to prove their case. Instead, the court emphasized that the plaintiff must typically establish their case through evidence.
The case in question involved the trial court pronouncing judgment against Samiullah for failing to submit a written statement on time. However, the Supreme Court, citing its earlier judgment in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, stressed that a judgment should only be passed when there is no need to prove facts due to deemed admission. If the plaint indicates disputed facts, the court should not pass judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove them.
The Court clarified that Rule 10, Order 8 of CPC is permissive, offering two options to the court. Pronouncing judgment in response to non-submission of a written statement should be done cautiously, considering the potential involvement of disputed facts. The court highlighted that the provision is not mandatory, and the court has the discretion to opt for the second alternative.
The ruling emphasized that invoking Rule 10 of Order VIII should be done with care, particularly when multiple defendants are involved. The court recommended opting for the second alternative if even one defendant has filed a written statement, ensuring a judicious exercise of discretion.
Case Title: ASMA LATEEF & ANR. V. SHABBIR AHMAD & ORS.
