2012 (4) TMI 847 - SC - Indian Laws

Appeal dismissed; trial court's partition decree set aside for fresh trial with proper evidence scrutiny under Order VIII Rule 1

C.N. RAMAPPA GOWDA Verus C.C. CHANDREGOWDA (DEAD) BY LRs. & ANR.  

C.N. RAMAPPA GOWDA Verus C.C. CHANDREGOWDA (DEAD) BY LRs. & ANR.   - TMI ISSUES: Whether the High Court exceeded its jurisdiction by directing a retrial and permitting defendants to file written statement without justifiable and legally sustainable reasons when defendants were duly served and represented.Whether defendants who failed to file written statement despite several opportunities could be granted fresh opportunity by the High Court, causing delay and prejudice to the plaintiff.Whether a trial court can pass a decree in favor of the plaintiff without written statement from defendants and without requiring the plaintiff to lead evidence or critically appreciating the merits of the case.What is the proper judicial approach when a defendant does not file written statement: can the suit be decreed solely on plaintiff's affidavit and pleadings without further proof? RULINGS / HOLDINGS: The High Court did not exceed its jurisdiction in remanding the matter for retrial and permitting defendants to file written statement, as the trial court had failed to critically examine the plaintiff's case and evidence despite absence of written statement.Defendants' failure to file written statement was explained by illness of a key defendant, and procedural law under Order 8 Rule 1 CPC allows extension of time for filing written statement; thus, fresh opportunity was justified.The trial court erred in granting decree solely on the basis of pleadings and ex-parte affidavit evidence without requiring the plaintiff to prove the joint nature of the property or critically examining documentary evidence.'The court should be a little cautious in proceeding under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC' and must ensure that 'even if the facts set out in the plaint are treated to have been admitted, a judgment could possibly be passed in favour of the plaintiff without requiring him to prove any fact mentioned in the plaint' before passing decree against defendant who has not filed written statement.Where disputed questions of fact arise from the plaint itself, it is not safe to pass judgment without requiring the plaintiff to prove facts so as to settle factual controversy.The High Court was justified in setting aside the trial court's judgment and decree and ordering de-novo trial after permitting defendants to file written statement. RATIONALE: The Court applied procedural law under Order 8 Rule 1 and Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), emphasizing that non-filing of written statement is not penal but intended to expedite disposal of suit.The Court relied on precedent that the trial court must not act 'blindly upon the admission of a fact made by the defendant in his written statement nor should the court proceed to pass judgment blindly merely because a written statement has not been filed.'The Court underscored the duty of the trial court to critically examine the plaintiff's evidence and pleadings, especially when the defendant does not file written statement, to avoid mechanical or punitive decrees.The Court recognized that the procedural law is directory, not mandatory, allowing courts discretion to extend time for filing written statement to serve the interest of justice.The Court balanced equity and fairness by dismissing the appeal but awarding token costs to the plaintiff due to delay caused by defendants' failure to file written statement and cross-examination.