The Supreme Court has held that while framing of issues is not mandatory in ex parte civil proceedings, failure to do so may vitiate the trial if it causes prejudice to the parties.
The bench of Justice Sanjay Karol and Justice Augustine George Masih emphasized that even in the absence of a contest by the defendant, courts must identify the “points for determination” and deliver a reasoned judgment in compliance with the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
The judgment came in the case of Pramod Shroff v. Mohan Singh Chopra, where the Court was examining the legality of an ex parte dismissal of a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The appellant had challenged the decision of the Calcutta High Court, which had upheld the trial court’s dismissal of the suit on the ground that the plaintiff failed to establish the title of the defendant over the property.
The Supreme Court noted that the central issue arose from the procedural obligations of courts while adjudicating ex parte matters. It examined whether omission to frame issues, particularly on a crucial aspect like title, could invalidate the judgment. The Court observed that although Order XIV Rule 1(6) CPC does not mandate framing of issues where the defendant does not appear, this does not dispense with the requirement of a legally sustainable and reasoned judgment.
Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court reiterated that a “judgment” under Section 2(9) CPC must contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and reasons for such decision. Even in ex parte cases, courts are duty-bound to scrutinize pleadings, assess evidence, and formulate points that require adjudication.
The Bench emphasized that “points for determination” serve the same purpose as framed issues—they crystallize the dispute and guide both adjudication and appellate review. A judgment that fails to address such points cannot be said to meet the requirements of law. It further clarified that merely granting or rejecting relief without a reasoned analysis amounts to a material irregularity.
Importantly, the Court laid down that omission to frame issues would vitiate proceedings if it results in prejudice to a party. The test, as articulated by the Court, is whether the party had knowledge that a particular question was in issue and whether they were given an opportunity to lead evidence on that issue. If not, the omission becomes fatal.
Applying this principle to the present case, the Court found that the plaintiff’s suit for specific performance was dismissed on the ground of lack of title of the defendant—an issue that was neither pleaded nor framed. The appellant was not put to notice that such a question would be decisive, nor was he given an opportunity to lead evidence on it. This, the Court held, caused serious prejudice and rendered the judgment unsustainable.
The Court also reaffirmed the essential requirements for a decree in a suit for specific performance, including existence of a valid contract, breach by the defendant, and readiness and willingness of the plaintiff. It noted that these elements were present in the case, yet the suit was dismissed on an unrelated ground without proper adjudication.
Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the judgments of both the trial court and the High Court, holding them to be contrary to law. The matter has been remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration with directions to frame appropriate issues, allow parties to complete pleadings, and provide an opportunity to lead evidence.
The Court directed the appellant to appear before the trial court on May 4, 2026, and instructed that the matter be decided expeditiously, considering the suit has been pending since 2007.
Case Details
Case Title: Pramod Shroff Versus State Of Bihar
Citation: JURISHOUR-807-SC-2026
Case No.: SLP (C) NO.20779 OF 2025
Date: April 16, 2026
Read More: Seat of Arbitration Alone Determines Jurisdiction, Not Place of Hearing or Award: Supreme Court
