Pramod Shroff v. Mohan Singh Chopra
Supreme Court of India, 16 April 2026, 2 judges, 2026 INSC 378
Framing issues in an ex parte suit is not mandatory, but the judgment must still state and answer points for determination under Order XX Rule 4; dismissing a specific performance suit on an unpleaded, unframed question of title caused prejudice.
Facts
On 27.01.1977 the respondent agreed to sell a flat in Shalimar Apartments, Kolkata, with a car parking space, to the appellant for Rs. 95,000, of which Rs. 90,000 was paid; the appellant was put in possession and given the title documents. When the respondent neither accepted the balance of Rs. 5,000 nor executed the conveyance, the appellant sued for specific performance. The suit proceeded ex parte, and the City Civil Court at Calcutta dismissed it on 26.10.2017 on the ground that the appellant had failed to prove the respondent's title. The High Court of Calcutta dismissed the first appeal on 21.01.2025. The respondent did not appear in either court below or before this Court, which appointed an Amicus Curiae. The appellant argued that no issue on title had been framed, so he had no notice of it and could not be expected to lead evidence on it.
Questions before the Court
- What are the essential requirements of a valid judgment in a civil suit decided ex parte?
- Does the absence of formal framing of issues vitiate an ex parte suit, and did the courts below discharge their obligation in deciding the suit ex parte?
What the Court held
- Framing of issues in an ex parte suit is not mandatory, since Order XIV Rule 1(6) CPC dispenses with it where the defendant makes no defence, but the judgment must conform to the Code, and Order XX Rule 4(2) requires a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision on them and the reasons.
- Points for determination correspond to issues. Even in default or ex parte suits the court must identify the points and give a reasoned answer; simply granting a decree on default is not enough under Section 2(9) CPC.
- Omission to frame issues vitiates the trial if it causes prejudice. The test is whether the parties going to trial knew that the particular question was in issue and had an opportunity to lead evidence on it.
- The appellant's suit was dismissed for want of the respondent's title, a point neither pleaded nor framed, on which he had no opportunity to lead evidence. This caused prejudice, so both judgments were set aside and the suit remanded for issues to be framed and evidence led.
Why it matters
The judgment states the requirements of a valid ex parte judgment in a civil suit: points for determination must be stated and answered even when issues are not framed. It also lays down a two part test of prejudice for deciding when the omission to frame issues vitiates a trial, and applies it to a court deciding a specific performance suit on a question no one had raised.
In the Court's words
Copied from the official judgment; each passage links to its page.
“In other words, even in default or ex parte suits, the court should identify the legal points (even if obvious) and give a reasoned answer. Simply granting a decree on default is not enough under Section 2(9) of CPC doing so would be a “material irregularity”. Thus, points should be framed (or recited from existing pleadings) and addressed regardless of default.”
“Though framing of issues, as mentioned above, although, is not mandatory yet, if the omission to frame the same causes prejudice to the parties, then the same can vitiate the trial. The test for finding as to omission to frame the issues have caused prejudice to the parties or not can be laid down on the touchstone as to whether parties that go to trial had knowledge that (i) a particular question is in issue and (ii) had opportunity to lead evidence on that issue.”
“However, the suit was dismissed for lack of title in favour of the Respondent. No issues or points for determination were framed for the same. Appellant at no point was given an opportunity to lead evidence on the same. In the absence of any issues, and especially in the absence of any pleading contesting title of the Respondent, the Appellant could not be expected to prove such title in a suit for specific performance of Agreement to sell. Therefore, omission to frame issues has caused prejudice to the Appellant.”
Provisions interpreted
Case and bench
- Parties
- Pramod Shroff v. Mohan Singh Chopra
- Case
- Civil Appeal No. of 2026 (Arising out of SLP (C) No. 20779 of 2025)
- Decided
- 16 April 2026
- Bench
- Sanjay Karol, Augustine George Masih
- Opinions
- Judgment of the Court by Augustine George Masih, J., signed also by Sanjay Karol, J. No separate opinion appears in the file.