01-Feb-2026
In a significant ruling reaffirming foundational principles of civil justice, the Supreme Court of India has held that a civil court cannot pronounce judgment merely because the defendant has failed to file a written statement, unless the plaintiff independently proves his case by leading evidence. Setting aside a decree passed by the trial court, a Bench comprising Justices B.R. Gavai, Dipankar Datta and Aravind Kumar underscored that procedural default by a defendant does not absolve the plaintiff of the burden of proof.
Background of the Case
In ASMA LATEEF & ANR. v. SHABBIR AHMAD & ORS., the trial court decreed the suit solely on the ground that one of the defendants, Samiullah, failed to file his written statement within the stipulated time. No evidence was led by the plaintiff to substantiate the claims made in the plaint. The Supreme Court found this approach legally unsustainable.
Core Issue Before the Court
Whether a court can pass a decree against a defendant only on account of failure to file a written statement, without requiring the plaintiff to prove the pleaded facts by evidence.
Interpretation of Order VIII Rule 10 CPC
Order VIII Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code provides:
Where any party from whom a written statement is required fails to present the same within the time permitted, the Court shall pronounce judgment against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit.
The Supreme Court clarified that Rule 10 provides two distinct alternatives: Pronounce judgment against the defaulting defendant, or Pass such other order as the court deems fit.
Importantly, the Court held that the use of the word “shall” does not make the first alternative mandatory.
Justice Dipankar Datta, authoring the judgment, observed that if judgment were to be pronounced in every case of default, the second alternative would become redundant, which could never have been the legislative intent.
Plaintiff Must Still Prove His Case
The Court categorically held:- Mere failure or neglect of a defendant to file a written statement does not, in all cases, entitle the plaintiff to a judgment in his favour unless, by adducing evidence, he proves his case.
The Bench explained that unlike writ proceedings where pleadings are supported by affidavits a civil suit requires proof of facts through examination of witnesses and evidence. A plaint contains only pleadings, not proof. If disputed questions of fact arise from the plaint itself, it would be unsafe for a court to pass a decree without trial.
Reliance on Earlier Precedent
The Supreme Court reiterated the principle laid down in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, holding that a court may pass judgment on default only if it is satisfied that no fact requires proof due to deemed admission. Where facts are disputed, evidence becomes indispensable.
Multiple Defendants: Exercise of Greater Caution Required, The Court also expressed concern over situations involving multiple defendants. In the present case, while one defendant defaulted, others had filed written statements.
The Court warned that decreeing a suit against one defendant alone could lead to contradictory or inconsistent decrees, and therefore: Power under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC must be exercised with care, caution and circumspection. As a rule, where even one of several defendants has contested the suit, courts should prefer the second alternative under Rule 10 and proceed with evidence unless extraordinary circumstances justify otherwise.
Key Takeaways from the Judgment
Default in filing written statement is not automatic decree
Order VIII Rule 10 CPC is permissive, not mandatory
Plaintiff must prove pleaded facts by evidence
Greater caution required in cases involving multiple defendants
Courts must avoid mechanical decrees based solely on procedural lapses
Conclusion
This judgment reinforces the cardinal principle that civil justice cannot be reduced to a penalty for procedural default. The ruling protects substantive justice by ensuring that decrees are based on proof, not merely on absence of defence. Trial courts across the country are now reminded that Order VIII Rule 10 CPC is a discretionary provision, to be invoked judiciously and not as a shortcut to dispose of suits.
Case Title: ASMA LATEEF & ANR. v. SHABBIR AHMAD & ORS.
Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013
