Written statement default does not justify a decree without proof of foundational facts; retrial and filing were allowed.

Absence of a written statement does not entitle a plaintiff to a decree as of course; the court must still satisfy itself that the pleaded foundational facts are proved and can support the relief sought. The Supreme Court noted that the trial court had acted mechanically in granting partition without adequate proof of joint ownership, so a decree based only on the plaintiff's affidavit could not be sustained. It also held that procedural rules for filing a written statement are directory in appropriate cases, and the High Court was justified in remanding the matter for retrial and permitting the defendants to file a written statement where justice required.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the decree and remanding the suit for retrial while permitting the defendants to file a written statement. (ii) Whether a suit can be decreed merely because the defendant has not filed a written statement, without the plaintiff proving the foundational facts of his claim.

Issue (i): Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the decree and remanding the suit for retrial while permitting the defendants to file a written statement.

Analysis: The absence of a written statement does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a decree. The Court held that the trial court had proceeded in a mechanical manner and had not critically examined whether the plaintiff had established the joint nature of the property or the basis for a partition decree. It further held that, in appropriate cases, procedural rules governing filing of a written statement are directory and a court may permit filing where the interests of justice so require.

Conclusion: The High Court was justified in remanding the matter for retrial and in permitting the defendants to file a written statement.

Issue (ii): Whether a suit can be decreed merely because the defendant has not filed a written statement, without the plaintiff proving the foundational facts of his claim.

Analysis: The Court reiterated that even in the absence of a written statement, the court must satisfy itself that the facts pleaded by the plaintiff are proved or are otherwise capable of supporting a decree. A plaint cannot be blindly accepted as proof, and the plaintiff retains the burden of proving essential facts, especially where disputed questions arise. An uncontested decree is permissible only when the plaintiff's case is prima facie unimpeachable and no fact requires proof beyond deemed admission.

Conclusion: A decree could not be sustained on the plaintiff's affidavit alone, and the trial court had erred in granting partition without adequate proof.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the remand order failed, and the decree in favour of the plaintiff was not restored. The retrial direction with permission to file a written statement was upheld, along with token costs.

Ratio Decidendi: In the absence of a written statement, a court may not pass a decree mechanically; it must independently satisfy itself that the plaintiff's pleaded facts are proved and can support judgment, and it may permit retrial or filing of a written statement where justice so requires.

---