Even In Ex Parte Suits, Courts Must Frame 'Points For Determination' & Deliver Reasoned Judgments : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court has observed that although formal framing of issues may not be mandatory in ex-parte civil suits, courts are nonetheless required to identify and decide “points for determination."

Though framing of issues is not mandatory, if the omission to frame the same causes prejudice to the parties, then the same can vitiate the trial, the Court stated.

“…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.”, the court observed.

A bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih set aside the Calcutta High Court's judgment affirming the trial court's dismissal of the appellant's suit for specific performance. The suit, which proceeded ex-parte, was dismissed on the ground that the appellant failed to prove the respondent's title, despite no issue having been framed on that aspect.

The appellant-plaintiff had challenged the dismissal, arguing 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.

Finding force in the Appellant's contention, the judgment authored by Justice Masih observed that although Order XIV Rule 1(6) CPC dispenses with the need to formally frame issues in ex parte proceedings, the court must still identify and decide “points for determination”, which effectively perform the same function as issues in a contested suit.

“…it can be said that 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.”, the court observed, emphasizing that “a judgment…must be in conformity with the provisions of the Code or at least set out the reasoning by which the controversy is resolved'.

“Points for determination are the court's restatement of the disputed questions (issues) that were placed before it, and the judgment must answer each. They serve to concentrate the court's reasoning and ensure completeness of adjudication.”, the court added.

The Court held that the prejudice was caused to the Appellant, as he was offered no opportunity to contest the suit on the aspect of the lack of title of the Respondent on the suit property.

“In present case…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.”, the court observed.

Accordingly, the appeal was allowed, and the suit for specific performance was restored to its file at the trial court for fresh consideration, upon framing the issues and affording an opportunity to the Respondent to lead evidence.

Cause Title: PRAMOD SHROFF VERSUS MOHAN SINGH CHOPRA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 384

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For Petitioner(s) Mr. Jai Sahai Endlaw, Adv. Ms. Sagarika Kaul, Adv. Mr. Rishabh Singhle, Adv. Mr. Sujoy Chatterjee, AOR

For Respondent(s) Mr. Anup Kumar, AOR