CPCWritten statementSupreme Court of India

Balraj Taneja v Sunil Madan

AIR 1999 SC 3381; (1999) 8 SCC 39619991 min read
The case in brief30-second read
Facts
The first respondent sued in the Delhi High Court for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The defendants did not file their written statement, and the Single Judge decreed the suit without discussing the evidence or giving reasons; a Division Bench upheld the decree.
Issue
What a court should do when the defendant does not file a written statement, and whether a judgment without reasons is valid.
Held
The court is not to act blindly on the averments in the plaint merely because the written statement is not filed. Where facts need proof, the court should require proof, and a judgment must contain the process of reasoning (S.2(9) CPC); merely saying "suit decreed" is not a judgment. The appeal was allowed, both High Court judgments set aside and the case remanded; the defendants were allowed to file a written statement by 15 October 1999, failing which the decree would stand.
Principle
A court need not pronounce judgment against a defendant who has not filed a written statement merely because of the default; where facts need proof it should require proof, and every judgment must give reasons
Cite this

Facts

  • The first respondent sued in the Delhi High Court for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The defendants did not file their written statement, and the Single Judge decreed the suit without discussing the evidence or giving reasons; a Division Bench upheld the decree.

Issue

  1. What a court should do when the defendant does not file a written statement, and whether a judgment without reasons is valid.

Held

  • The court is not to act blindly on the averments in the plaint merely because the written statement is not filed. Where facts need proof, the court should require proof, and a judgment must contain the process of reasoning (S.2(9) CPC); merely saying "suit decreed" is not a judgment. The appeal was allowed, both High Court judgments set aside and the case remanded; the defendants were allowed to file a written statement by 15 October 1999, failing which the decree would stand.

Ratio decidendi

Non-filing of a written statement does not dispense with the court's duty to apply its mind and give reasons.

Exam use

How to use it in an answer

Cite on O.VIII R.5(2) and R.10 and on the meaning of "judgment".

Cite this

Citation

Balraj Taneja v Sunil Madan AIR 1999 SC 3381; (1999) 8 SCC 396

Reported: https://indiankanoon.org/doc/182831/. This is an educational summary, not the judgment itself. Cite the reported version in professional or academic work.