SHAHUL HAMEED Vs. JOHNY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In a suit for specific performance of contract for sale, a two line judgment was delivered by the learned Sub Judge after specifying ten agreements with its respective dates. No discussion was made with respect to the content of the abovesaid documents or its evidentiary value and the purpose for which the said agreements were executed. In fact, there is no speaking order. The relevant portion of the judgment is extracted below for reference:

(2.) A Division Bench of this Court in Centre for Management Development v. Panayam Grama Panchayath (2017 (1) KLT 609) had the occasion to come across a similar situation and has laid down the procedure to be followed when the defendant remained ex parte. Paragraphs 6, 7 and 10 of the said judgment are extracted below for reference:

(3.) The trial court has failed to comply with the requirement under Rule 5 and 10 of Order VIII C.P.C. and overlooked the legal position settled by the Division Bench of this Court. The courts are established as the last resort of an aggrieved person and hence requires utmost care and caution while discharging their duties and they shall not adopt any easy method of disposal of suit in a routine manner without attending the disputed questions with the pleading and evidence thereof. The practice being adopted by some of the subordinate courts for easy disposal, taking the advantage of the absence of the defendant, by stating "uncontroverted evidence/ unchallenged evidence proves the case of plaintiff " without going into the admissibility of the evidence and its legal impact on the issues involved is too dangerous and hence cannot be sustained. It is not the challenge that governs, but the entitlement of the relief, for which necessarily the court must go into the pleading and evidence. When written statement is submitted, the court must address its effect on the case advanced by the plaintiff such as admission, question of limitation etc. It is too adventurous to grant a decree in favour of the plaintiff on the sole ground that the defendant remained ex parte. The courts are not expected to adopt such easy method of disposal of the suit without a speaking order and without adjudicating the disputes/issues on the pleading and evidence involved.