HINDI VIDYA PRACHAR SAMITI

(HVPS) LAW COLLEGE

RINA RAM

TYLLB SEM V

DIV.: B

ROLL NO. : 01

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE,1908 & LIMITATION ACT

 INDEX

CASE STUDY: Balraj SR.NO PARTICULAR PG.NO.

Taneja V. Sunil Madan 1 INTRODUCTION 3

2 FACT 4

3 ISSUE 5
4 JUDGEMENT 6

5 CONCLUSION 7
 INTRODUCTION
As the Supreme Court in Balraj Taneja V. Sunil Madan, AIR 1999 SC 3381 held, a Judge cannot merely say “Suit Dismissed” or “Suit
Decreed”. The whole process of reasoning has to be set out for deciding the case one way or the other.

The suit was decreed by the High Court under Order 8 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code and under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 9. In both the
situations, it was observed that if the Written Statement has not been filed by the Defendant, it will be open to the Court to pronounce judgment
against him or make such order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit.

Citation : (1999) 8 SCC 396

Bench: D. P. Mohapatro and S. Saghir Ahmad

Appellant: Balraj Taneja & Anr.

Respondent: Sunil Madan & Anr.

 FACTS
• Respondent No. 1, Sunil Madan, filed a suit in the Delhi High Court against the Appellants and Respondent No. 2 for specific performance of an agreement for sale
in respect of the property.

• The suit was filed in May 1996 and the summons were issued to the Appellant.

• In response thereto, they put in an appearance before the Court on 20th September, 1996 and prayed for eight weeks’ time to file a written statement, which was
allowed to them and the suit was adjourned to 22nd of January, 1997.

• The written statement was not filed even on that date and an application was filed for asking more time to file it which was allowed as a last chance and the written
statement was directed to be filed by 7th of February, 1997.

• Since the written statement was still not filed, the Court decreed the suit for specific performance in favour of Respondent No. 1 under Order 8 Rule 10 of the Civil
Procedure Code.

• An appeal, which was filed by the Appellants, including Respondent No. 2 thereafter, before the Division Bench was dismissed on 29.4.1998. It is in these
circumstances that the present appeal has been filed in the Court.
 ISSUE
Whether the High Court was justified in passing the decree against the Appellants with regards to the circumstances of the case?
 JUDGEMENT
The suit was decreed by the High Court under Order 8 Rule 10 of Civil Procedure Code and under the provisions of Order 8 Rule 9. In both the situations, it was

observed that if the Written Statement has not been filed by the Defendant, it will be open to the Court to pronounce judgment against him or make such order in relation

to the suit as it thinks fit. The words “against him” are to be found in Rule 10 of Order 9, which obviously means that the judgment will be pronounced against the

defendant. These words are of immense significance; in as much as they give discretion to the Court not to pronounce judgment against the Defendant and instead pass

such an order as it may think fit in relation to the suit.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and had set aside the decree of the Divisional Bench of the Delhi High Court. The case was remanded back to the Delhi High

Court for a fresh decision, and the Appellants were allowed to file the written Statement by 15th October 1999, and non-compliance with the above would validate the

High Court's Verdict.

 CONCLUSION
In the case of Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan[13], a suit of specific performance of contract was filed by A against B. The suit filed by A was decreed as B never filed a

written statement. But, Supreme Court observed that even if B had not filed a written statement, the court was bound to apply his mind, to consider all the facts as to

whether A was willing to perform his part of the contract and whether it was correct to pass a decree of filing a written statement.

THANK YOU..!