BALRAJ TANEJA AND ANR. versus SUNIL MADAN AND ANR.

Citation: [1999] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 258 · Decided: 08-09-1999 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S. SAGHIR AHMAD · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
BALRAJ TA NEJA AND ANR. 
v. 
SUNIL MADAN AND ANR. 
SEPTEMBER 8, 1999 
B 
[S. SAGHIR AHMAD AND D.P. MOHAPATRA JJ.] 
Civil Procedure Code, Order 8 Rules 5 and JO-Suit-No Written 
Statement filed-Facts in plaint not controverted-Still Court has to satisfy 
itself that there is no fact requiring further proof, in spite of presumed 
C admission and conduct of parties, before passing a decree-Without settling 
the dispute set out in the plaint on which hinges the readiness and willingness 
of plaintiff to pe1form his part of contract, a Decree of Specific Performance 
could not be passed. 
CPC, S 2 (9)- "Judgment" delivered in a case should contain, apart 
D from facts of the case and points for determination, the process of reasoning 
which led to the decision irrespective of whether the case is contested, is ex-
parte, or where a Written Statement is not filed and is to be decided under 
Order 8 Rule 10 or before the High Court in its Original Jurisdiction. 
E 
Specific Relief Act, S. I 6-Jn a suit for specific performance, readiness 
and willingness of the party to perform his part of the contract is mandatory 
for passing a decree. 
F 
Constitution of Jndia, Article I 36-Interference by Supreme Court under 
discretionary jurisdiction-When called for. 
A suit for Specific Performance was filed before the High Court on the 
Original Side, by respondent No 1 against appellant and respondent No. 2 
which was decreed in his favour by Single Judge without a reasoned judgment, 
because he found that no written statement was filed despite time granted. 
The Division Bench upheld the decree against which the appeal has been 
G filed. The respondent submitted that the appellant had adopted dilatory tactics 
and did not explain why no written statement was filed by him before the 
lower Court. 
H 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD : I. A perusal of the High Court judgment will indicate that the 
258 
-
B. TANEJA v. S. MADAN 
259 
suit had been decreed only because of the failure of the defendants in filing A 
the written statement. This exhibits the annoyance of the Court which is 
natural as ~o Court would allow the proceedings to be delayed or 
procrastinated. But this should not disturb the judicial composure which 
unfortunately is apparent in the instant case as the judgment neither sets 
out the facts of the case nor does it record the process of reasoning by which B 
the Court felt that the case of the plaintiff was true and stood proved. As will 
be evident from the facts, the plaint itself showed a serious disputed question 
of fact involved between the parties with regard to obtaining the Certificate 
(permission) from the Income Tax Department and its communication by the 
defendants to the plaintiff(respondent No. I.) Since this question of fact was 
reflective of the attitude of the plaintiff, whether he was ready and willing C 
to perform his part of the contract, it had to be proved as a fact that the 
Certificate (permission) from the Income Tax Department had not been 
obtained by the defendants and, therefore, there was no occasion of sending 
it to him. If the pleadings of respondent No. 1 were limited in character that 
he had pleaded only this much that the defendants had not obtained the 
Certificate (permission) from the Income Tax Department and had not sent D 
. it to him, this fact would have stood admitted on account of non-filing of the 
Written Statement by the defendants. But Respondent No. 1., as plaintiff, 
himself pleaded that "defendants insisted that they had obtained the certificate 
(permission) from the Income Tax Department and sent it to him". He denied 
its having been obtained or sent to him. Non-filing of the Written Statement E 
would not resolve this controversy. The plaint allegations, even if treated as 
admitted, would keep the controversy alive. This fact, therefore, had to be 
proved by the plaintiff and the Court could not have legally proceeded to pass 
a judgment unless it was established clearly that the defendants had committed 
default in not obtaining the Certificate (permission) from the Income Tax 
Department and sending the same to the plaintiff. Unfortunately the High F 
Court did not consider this fact and proceeded almost blindly to pass a decree 
in favour of the plaintiff merely because Written Statement had not been 
filed in the case. The Single Judge, who passed the decree, did not consider 
any fact other than the conduct of the defendants in seeking adjou

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.