Suit decreed merely on grounds of failure of defendants in filing written statement - illegal - Court is not bound to pass a judgment and decree on mere admission of fact by the defendant
Balraj Taneja & Another Versus Sunil Madan & Another
Head Note
Civil Procedure Code, Order 12 Rule 5, Rule 6 & Rule 8 - Evidence Act, Section 58 - Admission of claim - Pronouncement of judgment on admission by defendant - Court is not bound to pass a judgment and decree on mere admission of fact by the defendant - It for the satisfaction of the Court - The Court may still require any fact so admitted to be proved. [Paras 21 to 29]
Specific Relief Act, 1963, Section 16 - Civil Procedure Code, Order 8 Rule 10 - Specific performance of agreement to sell - Passing of decree in favour of plaintiff because of not filing written statement by the defendant is subject to the satisfaction of the court that there are no disputed facts in the plaint and the averments made and documents produced show that the plaintiff was ready and willing to perform his part of the contract as per the mandatory recruitment of Sec. 16 of the Act - If these conditions are not satisfied, the court cannot pass a decree for specific performance but will exercise its discretion to pass any other appropriate order. [Paras 30, 33, 36 and 39]
Civil Procedure Code, Order 20, Rule 4(2) and Section 2(9) - Judgment - Decree - The judgment and decree must be a self-contained document from which it should appear as to what were the facts of the case and what was the controversy which was tried to be settled by the Court and in what manner - The Court must give its reasoning and conclusion - Court cannot pass a vague judgment on admission of other party or due to absence or not filing of written statement. [Paras 41 to 45]
Delhi High Court Act, 1966, - Civil Procedure Code, Section 2(9) - Judgment - Decree - Civil Procedure Code is applicable to the proceedings in the Delhi High Court - It is required to pass a speaking judgment as per Civil Procedure Code as also as understood in common parlance - Civil Procedure Code, Order 20, Rule 1(2). [Para 45]
Constitution of India, Article 136 - Discretionary jurisdiction - The Supreme Court is not bound to interfere in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction notwithstanding the judgment may not be wholly correct or as per law - However, where the question involved is likely to regulate the procedure to be followed by the Courts below, the Court can pass appropriate orders. [Para 46]
Appeal allowed
Cases referred :-
1. Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah and another, AIR 1955 SC 425 : 1955(1) SCR 1.
2. Chuni Lal Chowdhry v. Bank of Baroda and others, AIR 1982 J&K 93.
3. Dharam Pal Gupta v. District Judge, Etah, 1982 All Rent Cases 562.
4. State of U.P. & another v. Dharam Singh Mehra, AIR 1983 Allahabad 130.
5. Smt. Sushila Jain v. Rajasthan Financial Corporation Jaipur, AIR 1979 Raj 215.
6. Rosario Santana Vaz v. Smt. Joaquina Natividate Fernandes, AIR 1981 Goa 61.
7. Razia Begum v. Sahebzadi Anwar Begum & others, AIR 1959 SC 886 : 1959 SCR 1111.
8. Nanhe v. Saiyed Tasadduq Husain, 1912(15) Oudh Cases 78.
9. Thippaiah and others v. Kuri Obaiah, ILR 1980(2) Karnataka 1028
10. Dineshwar Prasad Bakshi v. Parmeshwar Prasad Sinha, AIR 1989 Patna 139.
Comparative Citations:
1999 (5) Scale 400, 1999 AIR(SC) 3381, 1999 (7) Supreme 27, 1999 (3) KLT 81 (SN), 1999 (8) SCC 396, 1999 (6) JT 473, 1999 (81) DLT 779
Comments
Post a Comment