Introduction:

The Supreme Court asserts that a court cannot pronounce judgment merely on a defendant’s default to file a written statement; the plaintiff must prove the case. The case involves the rejection of a decree in a civil suit due to the defendant’s failure to submit a written statement. The court clarifies that the plaintiff’s obligation to prove the pleaded case remains, even in the absence of the defendant’s statement. The judgment emphasizes the permissive nature of Order 8, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code, providing options for the court. This decision safeguards against hasty judgments and underscores the plaintiff’s responsibility to establish facts through evidence.

Arguments:

The case involves the trial court’s judgment against Samiullah for not filing a written statement within the stipulated time. The Supreme Court references Order 8, Rule 10, noting its permissive language, offering alternatives to the court. It distinguishes a civil suit from a writ petition, emphasizing the need for plaintiffs to prove facts through evidence. The court relies on its previous judgment in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, stating that a judgment can be passed against a defendant only when no fact requires proof due to deemed admission. However, if the plaintiff’s case involves disputed facts, evidence must be presented.

Court’s Judgement:

The Supreme Court sets aside the trial court’s decree, highlighting the non-mandatory nature of Rule 10, Order 8. It underscores the court’s discretion to choose between pronouncing judgment and making other suitable orders. The court cautions against invoking Rule 10 hastily, especially when there are multiple defendants. Emphasizing care, caution, and circumspection, the judgment guides courts to consider extraordinary circumstances before resorting to the first alternative. This decision reinforces the importance of due process and prevents contradictory decrees based solely on a defendant’s default.