The plaintiff's case must be proved for the suit to be decreed, and compliance with procedural rules may be substantial and not necessarily in specific words.

1. Original suit no. 599/2009 (Suresh Chandra Bhardwaj & another v. Dharmveer) was instituted for the relief of specific performance of contract. The plaint case in brief was that parties had executed a registered agreement to sell dated 10.10.2007, by which it was agreed between them that defendant will sell the property in suit to plaintiff for a consideration of Rs. 60,000/-; and at the time of execution of said contract, Rs. 20,000/- was received by the defendant as advance consideration. Plaintiff had been ready and willing to perform his part of contract and had kept the amount of remaining of consideration ready for payment at the time of registration of sale-deed; but defendant had not executed the sale-deed in spite of repeated reminders and notices to him, and in spite of the plaintiff being present in Sub-Registrar office after notice for executing the registered sale-deed. Therefore, plaintiff had filed the suit for specific performance of contract of sale.

2. In original suit, defendant no.-1 Dharmveer (present appellant) appeared and filed written-statement, in which he had admitted the execution of registered agreement to sell of disputed property on 10.10.2007, and receiving of advance consideration of Rs. 20,000/-. buthe had not admitted remaining contents of the plaint, and pleaded that he had been ready and willing to perform his part of contract of sell of property dated 10.10.2007, but plaintiffs were not ready for the same. The defendant had not denied the presence of plaintiffs on 16.10.2008 in Sub-Registrar Office but pleaded that since the said date was not agreed between the parties for execution of sale-deed, therefore, plaintiffs cannot get the benefit of it. He further pleaded that parties had agreed to execute the sale-deed within one year of registered agreement to sell but when plaintiffs had not showed their willingness for the same then defendant no.-1 had sold the disputed property on 14.09.2009 to defendant no.-2. Therefore, plaintiff's suit is liable to be dismissed.

3. During proceeding of the suit, after filing w.s. The defendant no.-1 had absented himself, and defendant no.-2 had also not contested he suit in spite of service, therefore suit proceeded ex-parte against them. The plaintiff's side had examined PW-1 Suresh Chandra Bhardwaj and PW-2 Wahid and filed documentary evidences. Then Civil Judge (S.D.), Bareilley had passed the ex-parte judgment dated 26.11.2010 by which plaintiffs' suit was partly decreed. By this judgment the trial court had declined the relief of specific performance of contract, but passed the decree against defendant no.-1 for return of money advanced at the time of execution of registered agreement to sell dated 10.10.2007 with interest of 12 per cent per annum. Not satisfied with the decree of the trial court, the plaintiff had preferred Civil Appeal no. 11/2011 (Suresh Chandra Bhardwaj v. Dharmveer and another) by which relief was sought for the specific performance of contract. The notice of first appeal was served on respondents/defendants, but when they absented themselves, then appeal was heard in their absence, and then the Additional District Judge, Court No. 11, Bareilly had passed the judgment dated 2.7.2015 by which appeal was allowed, the judgment dated 26.11.2010 passed by trial court was set aside, and original suit was decreed for relief of specific performance of contract with direction to defendant no.-1 Dharmveer (present appellant) to execute the registered sale-deed within two months after receiving the remaining amount of consideration. Aggrieved by this judgment of first appellate court, the defendant no.-1 of original suit had preferred present appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that it is the duty of the Court to ensure that even in case of ex-parte decree, plaint case must be proved. He further contended that at the time of passing ex-parte judgment issues must be framed. He contended that since the trial cour