IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
I.P. MUKERJI, BISWAROOP CHOWDHURY, JJ.
Marico Ltd. – Appellant
Versus
J.K. Enterprise and Others – Respondents
IA No. GA-COM/1 of 2024 APDT No. 7 of 2024, CS No. 128 of 2024
Decided On : 20-03-2024
(A) Civil Procedure Code - Order VIII Rule 10 and Order VIII Rule 5(2) - Undefended suit - The learned single judge erred in proceeding on the premise that the plaintiff must adduce evidence in an undefended suit, failing to appreciate the discretion available under Order VIII Rule 5(2) to pronounce judgment based on the plaint's facts. The court clarified that upon declaring a suit undefended, it retains the option to either accept the plaint's facts as true or require proof. (Paras 6-10)
(B) Appeal - The court set aside the impugned judgment and directed a fresh trial of the suit as undefended, allowing the plaintiff to prove its case based on the plaint and admissible documents. (Paras 13-14)
JUDGMENT :
1. An affidavit of service is on record. The postal endorsement says that none of the respondents/defendants could be located. The papers sent by post were returned to the advocate-on-record for the appellant/plaintiff by the postal authority.
2. None appears for the respondents/defendants. The impugned judgment and order dated 31st January, 2024 dismisses an undefended suit.
3. We regret to note that the learned single judge has proceeded on an erroneous legal premises.
4. It is an admitted position that the respondents/defendants had not filed their written statements and that the suit was declared undefended by the registry of this court.
5. As an undefended suit it was tried before the learned single judge.
6. His lordship has relied upon Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code which provides that where the defendant does not file a written statement within time, the court could proceed to pronounce judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit and proper.
7. His lordship has failed to appreciate Order VIII Rule 5(2) of the Civil Procedure Code which is in the following terms:
8. If one analyses Order VIII Rule 5(2), it is quite plain that upon the defendant not filing a written statement, the court has two options. The first is to pronounce judgment, taking the facts pleaded in the plaint as uncontroverted and true. If the court feels that its conscience would be clear if the plaintiff was asked to prove those facts, it could exercise the second option of asking the plaintiff to do so.
9. The learned single judge was completely wrong in entertaining the view that once the suit is declared as an undefended suit, the plaintiff is bound to adduce evidence to prove the facts in the plaint.
10. After the suit is declared as an undefended suit and is called on for trial, both the above options are open to the court. It cannot be said that at that point of time the first option is closed. If the plaintiff insists that without adducing oral evidence the suit be decreed on the averments in the plaint, the court has to consider and deal with such submission. If the court is of the view that it would not be proper to do so, it would use its discretion by asking the plaintiff to prove its case by adducing evidence.
11. The provision in Order VIII Rule 10 is completely different. According to this provision, the court might pronounce judgment against the party who has not filed a written statement within time or make any other order that it thinks fit and proper. This could only mean a substantive decree or order in the suit. For example, while trying an undefended suit the court might notice that summons have not been duly served on the defendants and might direct such service or dismiss the suit or while trying such a suit, the defendant appears and prays for time to file the written statement. The court might consider such prayer and allow him to do so. These are examples of the types of orders which are contemplated in Order VIII Rule 10 and not otherwise.
12. For all these reasons, dispensing with all formalities we took up the appeal for hearing.
13. We set aside the impugned judgment and order dated 31st January, 2024. We direct that the suit be tried afresh as an undefended suit with an option given to the appellant/plaintiff to prove its case on the basis of the averments in the plaint and the disclosed documents to the extent they are admissible in evidence. If this does not convince the court about the appellant/plaintiff’s case it should direct it to prove its case by oral evidence.
14. We request the learned single judge to entertain, try and determine the suit as an undefended suit within two months of communi
The court clarified the discretion available in undefended suits, emphasizing that a plaintiff is not automatically required to adduce evidence if the suit is declared undefended.
A court may decree a suit without a defendant's written statement if no contested issues exist in the plaint, but it must exercise discretion and ensure facts are clear and unimpeachable.
Procedural law is directory in nature, and the court must protect the substantial rights of the defendant.
Proper service of suit summons is essential for a court to deny a defendant the opportunity to defend; without such service, the timeline for filing a defense does not commence.
The curable nature of procedural defects and the directory nature of procedural provisions under the CPC and the Commercial Courts Act, 2015.
Written statement – Failure to file written statement within stipulated period or even extended period cannot to be detrimental to interest of defendant – Procedures are handmaid of justice and provi....
Point of law: Suit for specific performance of contract for sale -attention to the pleadings and evidence in a case by the court even where the defendants do not appear and they are ex parte shows a ....
Negligence of counsel does not excuse a party from the consequences of failing to participate in legal proceedings, emphasizing accountability in legal representation.
The striking off of a defendant's defence due to late filing of a written statement, despite court's extension, is unjustifiable, and such extensions are regarded as directory rather than mandatory, ....
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.