Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising Out of SLP (C) No. 20779 of 2025)

PRAMOD SHROFF … APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

MOHAN SINGH CHOPRA … RESPONDENT(S)

Table of Contents

Author:
Abdul Samim Akhtar, ADJ
Koraput, Odisha

Brief Reference of Parties

Pramod Shroff … Appellant(s)

who being a vendee entered into an agreement for sale relating to the suit property with the respondent and in consideration of Rs.95,000/- out of which Rs. 90,000/- was paid with an undertaking that balance of Rs.5,000/- would be paid on the date of execution of Conveyance deed. The appellant made request to the respondent on various occasions for execution of deed, but the same did not fructify. The appellant ready and willing to pay the balance amount of Rs.5,000/- but the respondent neither accepted the same nor executed Deed of Conveyance, for which the appellant filed a suit for specific performance for agreement to sell executed on dated 27.01.1977 against the Respondant-Defendant in relation to the suit property.

Mohan Singh Chopra … Respondent(s)

was the owner of the suit property, who entered into an agreement for sale relating to the suit property with the Appellant on 27.01.1977.

Moot Issues Involved in the Civil Appeal

In this Civil Appeal the Apex Court dealt with four moot issues, concerning:

Sl. No.	Legal Issue
1.	Procedural obligations of a civil court while adjudicating a suit ex parte.
2.	Whether the absence of formal framing of issues vitiates such proceedings?
3.	What constitutes a legally sustainable judgment?
4.	What are the essential requirements of a valid judgment in an ex-parte civil suit?

Key Legal Questions at a Glance

Procedural obligations of a civil court while adjudicating a suit ex parte.
Whether the absence of formal framing of issues vitiates such proceedings.
What constitutes a legally sustainable judgment.
Essential requirements of a valid judgment in an ex-parte civil suit.

Background and Title Chain of the Suit Property

The original owner of the suit property had executed a lease deed for a period of 75 years in favour of the Khimjis.

In pursuant to the said lease, the Khimjis undertook the construction of a building named “Shalimar Apartments” on the suit property.

That during the course of the construction of “Shalimar Apartments”, the Khimjis entered into a partnership with other entities under the name and style of Gulmohar Properties to facilitate the completion of construction and the sale of individual flats on an ownership basis.

That thereafter, Gulmohar Properties executed an agreement for sale concerning the suit property in favour of the Balwanis, which included an assignment clause.

That subsequently, the Balwanis transferred their rights and interest in the suit property to Mohan Singh Chopra, the Respondent-Defendant herein, through a tripartite registered sale deed. This sale deed was duly executed by Gulmohar Properties, the Balwanis, and the Respondent-Defendant.

That by virtue of the aforesaid transactions, the Respondent-Defendant, Mohan Singh Chopra, became the lawful owner of the suit property, holding valid and marketable title thereto.

That 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/-.

That 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.

That the 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 Respondent to execute the Conveyance Deed by the Appellant but the same did not fructify.

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.

Being aggrieved the appellant filed a suit for specific performance for agreement to sell dated 27.01.1977 against the Respondent (Defendant) in relation to the suit property.

Timeline of Events

Stage	Event
Original Lease	The original owner executed a 75-year lease in favour of the Khimjis.
Construction	Shalimar Apartments was constructed on the suit property.
Partnership	Khimjis formed Gulmohar Properties for construction completion and sale of flats.
Agreement for Sale	Gulmohar Properties executed an agreement for sale in favour of the Balwanis.
Assignment	The Balwanis transferred their rights to Mohan Singh Chopra through a registered tripartite sale deed.
Agreement Dated 27.01.1977	Agreement for sale executed between Respondent as Vendor and Appellant as Vendee for ₹95,000/-.
Part Payment	₹90,000/- paid, with ₹5,000/- payable at the time of execution of the Conveyance Deed.
Possession	Possession and original title documents handed over to the Appellant.
Litigation	Suit for specific performance filed by the Appellant.

Proceedings Before the Courts

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.

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 the Apex Court.

The present civil appeal assails the judgment and order dated 21.01.2025, passed by the High Court of Calcutta.

Whereby the Hon’ble High Court of Calcutta dismissed the F.A.T No. 47 of 2018 filed by the Appellant (Plaintiff) and affirmed the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2017 passed by the Trial Court.

The suit filed by the Appellant for specific performance for agreement to sell was dismissed ex parte.

Submission of the Appellant

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 puts the parties to notice of the facts that are required to be proved in a given case.

Key Contentions of the Appellant

No issue regarding the Respondent’s title was framed.
The Appellant was never put to notice that title had to be proved.
The burden of proving title could not be imposed without framing an issue.
The Courts below ignored the mandatory procedural requirement relating to framing of issues before trial.
The absence of proper issues prejudiced the Appellant’s opportunity to lead evidence.

Relevant Provisions of CPC Dealt in This Judgment

Judgment – Section 2(9) CPC

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.

Decree – Section 2(2) CPC

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.

Order XIV Rule 1(6) – Framing of Issues

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.

Order XX Rule 4(2) – Contents of Judgment

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 – Judgments of Courts

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.

Judgments of Other Courts.—(2) 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.

Summary of CPC Provisions Discussed

Provision	Subject	Purpose
Section 2(9)	Judgment	Defines the meaning of “judgment”.
Section 2(2)	Decree	Defines the meaning of a decree under the CPC.
Order XIV Rule 1(6)	Framing of Issues	Specifies situations where framing of issues is unnecessary.
Order XX Rule 4(2)	Contents of Judgment	Prescribes the essential components of a judgment.
Order XX	Judgments of Courts	Distinguishes between judgments of Small Cause Courts and other Courts.

Apex Court Observation

Basically the Apex Court analyse the concept of framing of issues, even in a case of ex-parte judgement where defendant does not present a defence. The Apex Court held that:-

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.
While considering the importance of framing of issues, held that it as an imperative stage in any civil proceedings as it narrows down the scope of trial by separating wheat from the chaff.
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.

Observation in Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani

Apex Court has referred the observation made in, Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani, where it has been held 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 of relevant facts and circumstances out of which the cause of action has arisen.

Further, it held that in a case of 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.

Duty of the Court in Ex Parte Proceedings

In Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad, 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.

Essential Requirements of a Judgment

While considering the essential requirements of a judgment in Balraj Taneja and Another v. Sunil Madan and Another 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.

“Points for Determination” – Meaning and Role

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 in the judgment they are stated as the point(s) to be decided.

Meaning

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.

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 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.

Points for determination are the court’s restatement of the disputed questions (issues) that were placed before it, and the judgment must answer each.

Even when a defendant fails to appear or file a written statement, the court cannot dispense with the points for determination altogether.

Apex Court on Default and Ex Parte Suits

While rejecting the observation made in the case of Balraj Taneja and Another v. Sunil Madan and Another, the Apex Court held that 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.

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 conformity with the provisions of the Code. Thus, Order XX Rule 4 of CPC comes into picture.

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.

Test for Determining Prejudice

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:

A particular question is in issue; and
Had opportunity to lead evidence on that issue.

Essential Requirements in a Suit for Specific Performance

Apex Court consider as to what are the key essentials in a suit for specific performance that a Plaintiff must prove to succeed.

As laid down in Man Kaur (dead) by LRs v. Hartar Singh Sangha,

Essential Requirement	Requirement to be Proved
1	There must be a valid contract.
2	That defendant committed breach.
3	Readiness and willingness of the plaintiff to perform his part of contract.

Application of the Law to the Present Case

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.

Key Principles Emerging from the Judgment

Issue	Apex Court Observation
Framing of Issues in Ex Parte Suit	Not mandatory, but highly important.
Points for Determination	Must be identified and answered in the judgment.
Duty of Trial Court	Scrutinize pleadings, documents and evidence before granting decree.
Judgment under CPC	Must satisfy Section 2(9) and Order XX Rule 4.
Failure to Frame Issues	Can vitiate the trial if prejudice is caused.
Specific Performance Suit	Plaintiff must establish all essential ingredients laid down by law.

Final Observation

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. As a result;

Matter shall stand remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration and decision.
The Appellant-Plaintiff shall appear before the trial court on 04.05.2026.
Trial court shall issue notice on the Respondent and grant time for completion of pleadings.
The court shall frame issues and accord opportunity to the parties to lead evidence.
The court shall proceed to decide the same at the earliest, keeping in view the fact that the suit is of the year 2007.

What's Hot

Tags

Categories