Court Cannot Dismiss Ex Parte Suit on Unpleaded, Unframed Issue: Supreme Court Sets Aside Specific Performance Decree Denied on Title

"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 significant ruling on civil procedure, the Supreme Court has held that a court adjudicating a suit ex parte cannot dismiss the plaintiff's claim on an issue that was never pleaded, never contested, and never reduced to a formal point for determination. Setting aside concurrent judgments of the Calcutta City Civil Court and the Calcutta High Court, the Supreme Court remanded a decades-old specific performance suit for fresh consideration, holding that the dismissal of the suit for failure to prove the defendant's title — when no issue on title was ever framed — caused irreparable prejudice to the plaintiff who had no opportunity to lead evidence on the point.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih delivered the ruling on April 16, 2026.

The dispute traced its origin to a chain of transactions involving Flat No. 61 in Shalimar Apartments, 42-B, Shakespeare Sarani, Kolkata. The original owner of the land had executed a 75-year lease in favour of the Khimjis, who constructed the building through a partnership firm called Gulmohar Properties. Gulmohar Properties executed an agreement for sale of the flat in favour of the Balwanis, which was thereafter assigned to Mohan Singh Chopra (the Respondent) through a tripartite registered sale deed.

On 27.01.1977, the Respondent as Vendor and the Appellant Pramod Shroff as Vendee executed an agreement for sale of the flat for ₹95,000, of which ₹90,000 was paid upfront. The remaining ₹5,000 was to be paid at the time of execution of the conveyance deed. The Appellant was put into possession and the original title documents were handed over to him. Despite repeated requests, the Respondent neither accepted the balance amount nor executed the conveyance deed.

The Appellant filed a suit for specific performance in 2007. The Respondent never appeared throughout the proceedings — not before the Trial Court, not before the Appellate Court, not before the High Court, and not before the Supreme Court either. Despite this complete absence, both courts below dismissed the suit ex parte holding that the Appellant had failed to prove the title of the Respondent in the suit property. No issue on title had been framed at any stage. The High Court affirmed the dismissal in January 2025. The Appellant then approached the Supreme Court.

The central questions were: whether the absence of formal issue-framing vitiates ex parte civil proceedings; what constitutes a legally valid judgment in an ex parte suit; and whether a suit for specific performance can be dismissed on the ground of failure to prove vendor's title when no such issue was pleaded, contested, or framed.

What a Valid Judgment Must Contain — Even in Ex Parte Proceedings

The Court commenced its analysis by examining the statutory requirements of a valid judgment under the CPC. Section 2(9) defines a "judgment" as the statement given by the Judge of the grounds of a decree or order. Order XX Rule 4(2) mandates that judgments of civil courts shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision.

Drawing from the landmark decision in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan (1999), the Court reiterated that a judgment "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."

"Simply granting a decree on default is not enough under Section 2(9) CPC — doing so would be a material irregularity."

The Court emphasised that even when a defendant fails to appear or file a written statement, the court cannot dispense with the points for determination altogether. Whether a case is contested, decided ex parte, or decided under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC for non-filing of written statement, the court must write a judgment in conformity with the Code and set out the reasoning by which the controversy is resolved.

Framing of Issues Not Mandatory in Ex Parte Suits — But Points for Determination Are

The Court drew a careful distinction that is critical for civil practitioners. Order XIV Rule 1(6) CPC expressly provides that framing of issues is not required where the defendant at the first hearing makes no defence. However, this dispensation from formal issue-framing does not relieve the court of its obligation under Order XX Rule 4(2) to identify and address the "points for determination" in the judgment itself.

Citing Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani (2003), the Court held that in an ex parte case, the trial court would do well to frame the points for determination and construct the judgment dealing with the points at issue one by one, even if formal issues under Order XIV need not be framed.

"Though framing of issues in an ex parte suit is not mandatory by virtue of Order XIV Rule 6, the judgment must be in conformity with the provisions of the Code. Order XX Rule 4 of CPC comes into picture."

The Court also clarified from Rameshwar Dayal v. Banda (1993) that the "points for determination" in a judgment are nothing but the issues contemplated by Order XIV Rules 1 and 3 — they focus the judgment on the exact matters in controversy, guide the parties and the appellate court, and ensure every controverted issue is addressed. A judgment that omits discussion of issues in dispute is defective.

The Prejudice Test: Was the Party Put to Notice?

The Court articulated the governing test for determining whether omission to frame issues vitiates a trial: the test is whether the party had knowledge that a particular question was in issue and had an opportunity to lead evidence on it. Drawing from Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao (1956) and Sayeda Akhtar v. Abdul Ahad (2003), the Court held that the rule against raising issues without framing them has no application where the parties actually went to trial with knowledge that a question was in issue. But where a question is neither pleaded nor contested and no issue is framed thereon, the plaintiff cannot be expected to prove such fact.

Title Was Never in Issue — Suit Could Not Be Dismissed on That Ground

Applying these principles to the facts, the Court found the dismissal wholly unsustainable. The Respondent had never appeared. He had never filed a written statement. He had never contested the Appellant's claim in any forum at any stage. Title was never put in issue by any party. No issue on title was framed by the Trial Court. And yet, both courts below dismissed the suit on the ground that the Appellant had failed to prove the Respondent's title in the property.

The Court recalled the essential ingredients of a suit for specific performance as laid down in Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha (2010): a valid and subsisting contract; breach thereof by the defendant; and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part. In the present case, all three ingredients were present and established. The Appellant had paid ₹90,000 of the agreed consideration; the original title documents had been handed over to him; he had been put in possession; and despite repeated requests over decades, the Respondent had refused to execute the conveyance deed.

"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."

Setting aside the judgments and decrees of both the Trial Court and the High Court, the Supreme Court remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The Trial Court was directed to issue notice to the Respondent, complete pleadings, frame issues, and afford both parties opportunity to lead evidence. The Appellant was directed to appear before the Trial Court on 04.05.2026. The Court specifically directed expeditious disposal given that the suit was filed in 2007 and the transaction itself dated back to 1977.

The judgment is a useful reminder for trial courts that proceeding ex parte does not mean proceeding mechanically — the court retains full judicial responsibility to identify the real questions in controversy and decide only those questions on the evidence before it.

Date of Decision: April 16, 2026