In ex parte civil suits, the absence of formally framed issues can vitiate proceedings, prejudicing a party's ability to contest and present a defense, as mandated by procedural law.

JUDGMENT :

AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J.

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 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 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 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 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 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 Rs.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 tha