{"id":381841,"date":"2026-04-21T18:00:26","date_gmt":"2026-04-21T12:30:26","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=381841"},"modified":"2026-04-21T18:08:07","modified_gmt":"2026-04-21T12:38:07","slug":"ex-parte-suit-framing-issues-not-mandatory-omission-can-vitiate-trial-sc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2026\/04\/21\/ex-parte-suit-framing-issues-not-mandatory-omission-can-vitiate-trial-sc\/","title":{"rendered":"Not Mandatory to Frame Issues in Ex Parte Civil Suit; However, Omission Causing Prejudice can Vitiate Trial: Supreme Court"},"content":{"rendered":"
\n

Supreme Court:<\/span> While considering this appeal which raised an important question regarding procedural obligations of a civil court while adjudicating a suit ex parte<\/span>, the Division Bench of Sanjay Karol and Augustine George Masih*<\/span>, JJ., held that though the framing of issues in an ex parte<\/span> suit is not mandatory by virtue of Order 14 Rule 6<\/a>, Civil Procedure Code, 1908<\/a> (CPC), but the judgment must be in conformity with the provisions of the CPC<\/a>. Thus, Order 20 Rule 4<\/a> CPC<\/a> comes into picture.<\/p>\n

The Court further added that if the omission to frame the issues causes prejudice to the parties, then the same can vitiate the trial. It was further held that the courts must determine “points for determination”, which are like issues, and answer them to resolve the matter of controversy between the parties.<\/p>\n

Also Read:<\/span> Purpose of framing issues is to enable parties to lead evidence so as to prove or disprove facts<\/a><\/p>\n

Background<\/h3>\n

The present matter was related to suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell. The present appeal challenged the High Court’s judgment dated 21 January 2025 whereby the Court affirmed the judgment and decree passed by the City Civil Court at Calcutta (trial court), vide which suit filed by the appellant for specific performance for agreement to sell was dismissed ex parte<\/span>.<\/p>\n

The appellant’s counsel contended that no issue regarding the respondent’s title was framed, the onus to prove the same did not fall on the appellant and since the appellant was not put to notice of the said issue and therefore, he could not have been expected to lead evidence in support of the same. It was further argued that the trial court and High Court disregarded the procedure prescribed i.e. for issues to be framed before trial, as the same puts the parties to notice of the facts that are required to be proved in a given case.<\/p>\n

The respondent, despite service, chose not to appear before the courts below or before the Supreme Court. The Amicus Curiae appointed by the Supreme Court was directed to get in touch with respondent directly in writing, apprise him about pendency of present appeal, his right to engage a counsel of his choice and his right of being represented through a legal aid counsel. Having done so, still the respondent remained unrepresented.<\/p>\n

Court’s Assessment<\/h3>\n

Perusing the matter, the Court framed the following issues:<\/p>\n