Obligation on part of plaintiff to prove facts mentioned in plaint even though defendant has not filed written statement

Shantilal Gulabchand Mutha v. Tata Engg. & Locomotive Co. Ltd., 
 Or. 8 R. 10, Or. 9 R. 13, Or. 20 Rr. 4 & 5 and Or. 14 R. 1 and S. 2(9) - Omission to file written statement - Power of
court under Or. 8 R. 10 to pass judgment against defendant in case of - Nature of power and duty of court, and relevant
considerations, in exercise of such power - Obligation on part of plaintiff to prove facts mentioned in plaint even in such a
case - Reiterated, power to proceed to pass judgment under Or. 8 R. 10 is discretionary and must be exercised
cautiously - Before exercising said power, court must be satisfied that there is no fact which needs to be proved in spite
of deemed admission by defendant - Even issue of limitation, if involved, must also be decided - Facts and
circumstances on basis of which court proceeded against defendant, and under what reasoning the suit has been
decreed, must be stated clearly in judgment - In present case,
before passing judgment under Or. 8 R. 10, trial court did
not examine as to whether suit was filed within limitation and whether on basis of pleadings, relief given could have been
granted - It did not even examine the case prima facie - Hence, judgment of trial court set aside - Case remanded to trial
court for decision afresh - Defendant given liberty to file written statement within the period specified herein, whereafter
trial court to proceed in accordance with law, (2013) 4 SCC 396-A 
 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 
 Or. 9 R. 13 and Or. 8 R. 10 - Ex parte judgment and decree passed in terms of Or. 8 R. 10 - Application under Or. 9 R.
13 against - Maintainability of - Question as to, not decided, (2013) 4 SCC 396-B 
 Practice and Procedure 
 Time-bound/Expeditious Disposal 
 Trial of old case (pertaining to year 1988) - Directed to be concluded expeditiously, (2013) 4 SCC 396-C 

Print Page