Supreme Court Sets Clear Precedent: Defendant's Failure to File Written Statement Alone Does Not Warrant Decree, Plaintiff Must Prove Case

In a landmark decision, the Supreme Court has overturned a civil suit decree, emphasizing that a court cannot render judgment solely based on a defendant’s default in filing a written statement. The court clarified that the plaintiff must substantiate their case with evidence for a decree to be justified.

The bench, comprising Justices BR Gavai, Dipankar Datta, and Aravind Kumar, underscored that the absence of a written statement from the defendant within the stipulated time does not automatically result in a judgment against them. The burden remains on the plaintiff to prove their case through the presentation of evidence.

Referring to Order 8, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, the court pointed out that the rule provides two alternatives: either pronounce judgment against the defendant or make another suitable order. The court emphasized that the first alternative, i.e., passing judgment, is not always mandatory.

Justice Datta, in the judgment, remarked, “The verb ‘shall’ in Rule 10, although substituted for the verb ‘may,’ does not mandate the first alternative, rendering the second alternative meaningless. In certain cases, the plaintiff must prove their case before obtaining a judgment in their favor.”

The court cited the case of Samiullah, where the trial court had passed judgment against the defendant for failing to submit a written statement on time. Relying on the precedent set in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, the Supreme Court emphasized that judgment should only be passed when there are no disputed questions of fact or when deemed admission occurs.

Highlighting the permissive nature of Rule 10, Order 8, the court stressed that if judgment were passed in every case of non-submission of a written statement, the second part of the rule would become obsolete. The court further clarified that a suit’s plaint is not equivalent to a writ petition, where evidence needs to be annexed; hence, the defendant’s failure to file a written statement does not automatically entitle them to a judgment.

The court urged caution in invoking Order 8, Rule 10, especially when there are multiple defendants. It emphasized that the power under this rule should be exercised with care and circumspection, particularly when at least one defendant has submitted a written statement. The court underscored the need for a judicious exercise of discretion, opting for the second alternative in Rule 10 unless extraordinary circumstances demand otherwise.

This ruling in the case of Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. establishes a clear precedent, outlining the careful application of Order 8, Rule 10, and reinforcing the principle that a plaintiff must prove their case for a decree to be granted.