LawcurbLawcurbTMLegal Intelligence. Simplified.

Pramod Shroffv.Mohan Singh Chopra

Citation:
2026 INSC 378
Date:
16 April 2026
Reading time:
15 min read

Legal Analysis: Pramod Shroff vs. Mohan Singh Chopra

Citation: 2026 INSC 378
Court: Supreme Court of India
Bench: Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih (Division Bench)
Judgment Author: Justice Augustine George Masih
Date of Decision: April 16, 2026
Nature of Judgment: Civil Appeal under Article 136 against High Court judgment affirming ex parte dismissal of specific performance suit.


Synopsis of the Judgment

The appellant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The defendant (respondent) did not appear, and the suit proceeded ex parte. The trial court dismissed the suit on the ground that the appellant failed to prove the defendant’s title to the property. The High Court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that while framing of formal issues is not mandatory in an ex parte suit under Order XIV Rule 6 CPC, the judgment must still contain “points for determination” with reasoned findings. The trial court had not framed any issue regarding the defendant’s title, and the appellant had no notice or opportunity to lead evidence on that point, causing prejudice. The matter was remanded for fresh trial with proper framing of issues.


1. Basic Information of the Judgment

Field Details Case Title Pramod Shroff vs. Mohan Singh Chopra Civil Appeal No. Arising out of SLP(C) No. 20779 of 2025 Bench Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih Date of Decision April 16, 2026 Citation 2026 INSC 378 Appeal From Judgment dated 21.01.2025 of Calcutta High Court in F.A.T No. 47/2018


2. Legal Framework

Laws Involved:

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Section 2(2) (decree), Section 2(9) (judgment), Order VIII Rule 10 (decree on default), Order XIV Rule 1(6) (framing of issues not required when defendant makes no defence), Order XIV Rule 6 (ex parte suits), Order XX Rule 4(2) (contents of judgment – concise statement, points for determination, decision, reasons), Order XX Rule 5 (findings on issues).

Precedents Cited:

  • Makhan Lal Bangal v. Manas Bhunia (2001) 2 SCC 652 – Framing of issues is imperative to narrow trial.

  • Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani (2003) 7 SCC 350 – Plaintiff in ex parte suit must show prima facie proof; court should frame “points for determination.”

  • Maya Devi v. Lalta Prasad (2014) 2 SCC 424 – Duty of court to ascertain factual and legal veracity of claim even in ex parte case.

  • Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan (1999) 8 SCC 396 – Judgment must contain points for determination and reasoning even in ex parte/default cases.

  • Rameshwar Dayal v. Banda (1993) 2 SCC 430 – “Points for determination” are essentially issues.

  • Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao (1956) SCR 451 – No prejudice if parties knew the issue and led evidence.

  • Sayeda Akhtar v. Abdul Ahad (2003) 7 SCC 52 – Omission to frame issue may cause prejudice.

  • Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha (2010) 10 SCC 512 – Essentials of specific performance: valid contract, breach, readiness and willingness.


3. Relevant Facts

  • Agreement to sell (27.01.1977): Respondent (vendor) agreed to sell suit property to appellant (vendee) for ₹95,000/-. ₹90,000 paid; balance ₹5,000 to be paid at registration. Possession handed over, original title deeds given.

  • Suit for specific performance (2007): Appellant filed suit. Respondent did not appear. Suit proceeded ex parte.

  • Trial court judgment (26.10.2017): Dismissed suit on ground that appellant failed to prove respondent’s title to the property.

  • First appeal: High Court affirmed.

  • Before Supreme Court: Respondent remained absent. Amicus Curiae appointed to assist.


4. Issues

  1. Whether the trial court, in an ex parte suit, was required to frame “points for determination” and give reasoned findings on each.

  2. Whether the omission to frame an issue on the respondent’s title caused prejudice to the appellant, vitiating the trial.

  3. Whether the judgment of the trial court complied with Section 2(9) and Order XX Rule 4(2) CPC.


5. Ratio Decidendi

  • Framing of formal issues not mandatory in ex parte suits (Order XIV Rule 6): When defendant makes no defence, the court need not frame issues. However, the judgment must still contain “points for determination” (equivalent to issues) and reasoned findings (Para 17-19, 26).

  • Even in ex parte cases, judgment must comply with Order XX Rule 4(2): The judgment must contain a concise statement of the case, points for determination, decision thereon, and reasons. A decree cannot be granted merely on default; the court must apply its mind to the plaintiff’s claim (Para 20-23).

  • Prejudice test for omission to frame issues: The trial is vitiated if (i) the parties did not know a particular question was in issue, and (ii) they had no opportunity to lead evidence on it. Here, the appellant had no notice that his title was in dispute (since the defendant never filed written statement contesting title), and no issue was framed, so he had no opportunity to lead evidence on respondent’s title (Para 28, 31).

  • Essentials of specific performance do not require plaintiff to prove vendor’s title unless title is specifically denied: In a suit for specific performance, the plaintiff must show a valid contract, breach, and readiness and willingness. The vendor’s title is presumed unless specifically contested. Here, no contest, so the court erred in dismissing for lack of proof of title (Para 30-31).

  • Remand for fresh trial: Since the trial court’s judgment was not a valid judgment under CPC, the matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration after framing issues and giving opportunity to both parties (Para 32-33).


6. New Legal Principles Established / Reiterated

  • Clarification on “points for determination” in ex parte suits: Even when formal issues are not framed under Order XIV Rule 6, the judgment must still articulate the points for determination (the disputed questions) and give reasoned findings. A judgment that omits points for determination is defective and not a valid judgment under Section 2(9) CPC.

  • Prejudice as the touchstone: Omission to frame an issue does not automatically vitiate the trial. The test is whether the party was aware of the issue and had an opportunity to lead evidence. If not, prejudice is established and the judgment cannot stand.

  • Plaintiff in specific performance need not prove vendor’s title unless title is specifically denied: The burden to prove title does not fall on the plaintiff in an ex parte suit where the defendant has not filed written statement contesting title.


7. Court’s Analysis and Examination of Concepts

  • Distinction between “issues” and “points for determination”: The Court clarified that while formal issues are framed under Order XIV before trial, “points for determination” in the judgment are the court’s restatement of those issues. In ex parte cases, where issues are not framed, the judgment must still set out points for determination based on the pleadings and evidence (Para 21-23).

  • Nature of ex parte judgment: Relying on Balraj Taneja, the Court held that an ex parte judgment cannot be a mechanical decree. The court must apply its mind, state the controversy, and give reasons. Simply reciting that the defendant is absent does not suffice (Para 23).

  • Application to facts: The trial court dismissed the suit on a ground (lack of title) that was never pleaded by the defendant, never framed as an issue, and on which the plaintiff had no opportunity to lead evidence. This was a clear case of prejudice and violation of natural justice (Para 31).

  • Remand appropriate: Since the suit was of 2007, the Court directed expeditious disposal within one year (Para 33).


8. Critical Analysis

Strengths: The judgment is a timely reminder that ex parte proceedings are not a license for courts to bypass procedural safeguards. It harmonises Order XIV Rule 6 (dispensing with formal issues) with Order XX Rule 4(2) (requiring points for determination and reasons). The prejudice test provides a practical standard for appellate courts.

Potential concerns: The judgment could be seen as creating an additional procedural layer in ex parte suits, potentially delaying disposal. However, the Court’s emphasis on reasoned decision-making is consistent with natural justice. The clarification that plaintiff need not prove vendor’s title unless contested is sound but may lead to contradictory findings if the title is genuinely defective – but that is a matter for the defendant to raise.

Practical impact: This judgment will be cited by plaintiffs in ex parte suits where the trial court dismisses the suit on a ground not put in issue. It will also guide trial courts to ensure that even in ex parte cases, they frame points for determination and give reasoned findings.


9. Final Outcome

Appeal allowed. The judgments of the trial court and the High Court are set aside. The matter is remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration. The appellant shall appear before the trial court on 04.05.2026. The trial court shall issue notice to the respondent, complete pleadings, frame issues, grant opportunity to lead evidence, and decide the suit expeditiously. No order as to costs.


10. Practical Application (Use in Court)

  • By plaintiffs in ex parte suits: If the trial court dismisses your suit without framing issues or giving reasons, argue that the judgment is not a valid judgment under Section 2(9) CPC. Cite this judgment to seek remand.

  • By trial courts: When a suit proceeds ex parte, do not automatically decree or dismiss. Frame “points for determination” based on the plaint, record evidence, and give reasoned findings on each point. Do not dismiss on a ground not pleaded or not put in issue.

  • By appellate courts: When examining an ex parte judgment, check whether the trial court identified the points for determination and gave reasons. If not, remand for fresh trial rather than deciding the merits.


11.  Court Lines

“Even when a defendant fails to appear or file a written statement, the court cannot dispense with the points for determination altogether. … the court has to write a judgment which must be in conformity with the provisions of the Code or at least set out the reasoning by which the controversy is resolved.” (Para 23, quoting Balraj Taneja)

“Though the framing of issues in an ex parte suit is not mandatory by virtue of Order XIV Rule 6 of CPC, but the judgment must be in conformity with Section 2(9) read with Order XX Rule 4(2) of CPC.” (Para 26)

“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.” (Para 31)


12. Legal Strategy Insight

For the plaintiff (appellant): If your ex parte suit is dismissed on a ground not pleaded or not put in issue, file an appeal arguing that the trial court’s judgment does not comply with Order XX Rule 4(2) – it lacks points for determination and reasoned findings. Cite this judgment to argue that the omission caused prejudice. Seek remand for fresh trial with proper framing of issues.

For the defendant (respondent): If you failed to appear, you cannot later argue that the trial court should have framed issues – you waived that right. However, if the trial court decides against you on a ground not pleaded, you may still challenge on appeal for lack of notice. But better to appear and file written statement to put the plaintiff to proof on all essential ingredients, including title.

View full judgment (PDF)