Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment which lays down that even when an ex-parte decree is passed the reasons for the same must be enunciated.   
• This judgment was delivered by a single judge bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court comprising of Justice SK Dubey. 

Facts 

• It is the case of the plaintiff that the father of Respondent no 1 and 2 entered into a registered agreement to sell in respect of the agricultural land. 
• Prior to the execution of the above the father of the Respondents (Umrao Singh) died. 
• When the Respondents did not execute the agreement to sell the plaintiff instituted the suit for specific performance. 
• Further the plaintiff amended the plaint to include the relief of restoration of possession as during the pendency of the suit he was dispossessed.  
• One of the respondents, i.e. Gulabbai transferred her share in the land to respondent Nirpat Singh. 
• The written statement was filed by the Respondents who took the defence that Umrao Singh was never the owner of the land and the land was owned and possessed by one Barelal. 
• The Trial Court proceeded ex parte in this case and recorded the evidences ex parte and further he fixed the date for arguments and after hearing the same the date was fixed for delivery of the judgment. 
• Before the date fixed for delivery of judgment the purchaser pedente lite (Nirpat Singh) moved an application for impleadment under Order I Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC) for impleading him as the party. 
• The above application was dismissed in default of applicant, Nirpat Singh and later on merits. 
• The Trial Court decreed the suit for specific performance and restoration of possession without recording separate finding on each issue framed. 
• Nirpat Singh, who is not the party to the suit filed an appeal and applied for grant of leave to file an appeal as he was an aggrieved party. 
• The same was allowed and the Appellate Court remitted the case to the Trial Court  holding that the Trial Court in it’s ex-parte judgment has not stated the findings or decisions on issues with reasons. 
• Aggrieved by the order of remand the Appellant/plaintiff has preferred this appeal.   

Issue Involved 

• Whether the order of remand owing to the fact that ex-parte judgment was not supported with reasons is correct? 

Observations 

• The Court held that the law is well settled that even in a case where suit is ex-parte or no evidence is led by the opposite party in rebuttal, a plaintiff will not be entitled to decree unless he proves his case by legal evidence. 
• Thus, when the issues were framed and the right of Umrao Singh (father of the Respondents) was challenged, the plaintiff was bound to prove his right, title and possession over the suit land unless in the opinion of the Court the finding upon any one or more of the issues was sufficient for the decision of the suit. 
• The above is the requirement of law under Order 20 Rule 5 of CPC. 
• In appealable cases it always desirable that the Court should pronounce it’s opinion on all the issues which have been raised in the case. 
• Recording of reasons in support of a disputed decision serves two purposes: 
  • It ensures that the decision is not a result of fancy or whim but a result of judicial approach. 
  • It is also intended to ensure adjudication of the matter according to law and the procedure established by law. 
• Hence it was held that as the matter was in complete violation of Order 20 Rule 5 of CPC the matter warrants no interference.  

Conclusion 

• A reasoned judgment is the soul of an efficient judicial system. The Court in this case discussed the position in Order 20 Rule 5 of CPC. 
• Even in cases of an ex parte decree the Court should give reasons for granting the decree.