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.

ORDER (Oral)

1. Can, in a case in which the defendant fails to file written statement in response to the suit within the time stipulated in that regard and remains absent, the suit proceeding, ipso facto, to straightaway decree the suit, without any further process, including the calling for an affidavit-in-evidence from the plaintiff?

2. I had some misgivings on the point. Several orders have been passed by the learned Single Judges of this Court, decreeing the suit in such circumstances. Most of these orders invoke the jurisdiction of the Court under Order VIII Rule 10¹ of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).

3. What troubled me was whether, where there was no written statement filed, the Court could straightaway decree the suit on the basis of the assertions in the plaint without seeking any affidavit-in-evidence from the plaintiff.

4. The question, however, appears to be answered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396. The Supreme Court, in that case, took stock of Order VIII Rule 5² and Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC. The Supreme Court proceeded to hold thus, in paras 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 27 and 29 of the report:

"9. The scheme of this Rule is largely dependent upon the filing or non-filing of the pleading by the defendant. Sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 provides that any fact stated in the plaint, if not denied specifically or by necessary implication or stated to be not admitted in the pleading of the defendant, shall be treated as admitted. Under Rule 3 of Order 8, it is provided that the denial by the defendant in his written statement must be specific with reference to each allegation of fact made in the plaint. A general denial or an evasive denial is not treated as sufficient denial and, therefore, the denial, if it is not definite, positive and unambiguous, the allegations of facts made in the plaint shall be treated as admitted under this Rule.

10. The proviso appended to this Rule is important in the sense that though a fact stated in the plaint may be treated as admitted, the Court may, in its discretion, still require such "admitted fact" to be proved otherwise than by such admission. This is an exception to the general rule of evidence that a fact which is admitted need not be proved.

11. Sub-rule (2) provides that if the defendant has not filed his written statement, it would be lawful for the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis of the facts contained in the plaint. The rule further proceeds to say that notwithstanding that the facts stated in the plaint are treated as admitted, the Court, though it can lawfully pass the judgment, may before passing the judgment require such fact to be proved. The rule is thus in consonance with the Proviso which also requires the fact, even though treated as admitted, to be proved. Thus, the Proviso and Sub-rule (2) read together indicate that where

(i) an allegation of fact made in the plaint is not denied specifically, or

(ii) by necessary implication, or

(iii) stated to be "not admitted" in the pleading of the defendant, or

(iv) the defendant has not filed the written statement,

such allegations of facts shall be treated as admitted. The Court in this situation can either proceed to pronounce judgment on such admitted facts or may require the plaintiff, in spite of such admission, to prove such facts.

12. Sub-rule (2) quoted above is thus an enabling provision which enables the Court to pronounce judgment on the basis