https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462996 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. en-us Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 04 Sep 2025 10:29:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462996 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. Case-Laws Indian Laws Mon, 23 Apr 2012 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=462996