The Single Bench of the Delhi High Court in the case of Kleenoil Filtration India Pvt Ltd vs Udit Khatri & Ors. consisting of Justice C. Hari Shankar held that the Court could proceed to decree the suit without calling for an affidavit in evidence only where the issue in the plaint and the facts set out therein do not disclose any such fact as would require to be proved by the Plaintiff on affidavit.
Facts:
What troubled the Bench, in this case, was whether, where there was no written statement filed, the Court could straightaway decree the suit based on the assertions in the plaint without seeking any affidavit-in-evidence from the Plaintiff.
Observations of the Court:
The Bench opined that this same question appeared to be answered by the Apex Court in Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan(1999 8 SCC 396) where it took stock of O8 R53 and O8 R10 Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as “CPC”). It held that the Court can, in an appropriate case, proceed to decree a suit based on the averments contained in a plaint. However, the word “shall” as it figures in O8R10 CPC had been held not to be mandatory, given the succeeding provision, in the same Rule, empowering the Court to “make such order concerning the suit as it thinks fit”.
It further noted that failure, on the part of the Defendant to file a written statement within the time allowed in that regard cannot, therefore, ipso facto and by itself justify invocation, by the Supreme Court, of O8 R10 to decree the suit without further process. It held that:
“It is only where the issue and the controversy in the plaint and the facts set out therein do not disclose any such fact as would require to be proved by the plaintiff on affidavit, that the Court can proceed to decree the suit without calling for an affidavit in evidence. A finding to that effect, which reflects that it has been arrived at after due application of mind to the averments in the plaint appears, therefore, to be the statutory sine qua non, before O8R10 can be invoked to decree a suit without an affidavit-in-evidence of the plaintiff…The Supreme Court has held that there cannot be any straightjacket formula to apply in these cases and that Court would, in every case, have to act based on its conscience. I also do not deem it appropriate, therefore, to propose any specific instances in which this power can be exercised.”
Moreover, the Bench opined that the second proviso to O8R5(1) CPC does not cater to a situation in which no written statement has been filed; a situation in respect of which the second proviso to O8R1 constitutes a self-contained provision. By operation of the second proviso to O8R1, a maximum period of 120 days is granted to the defendant to file the written statement which, unlike CPC as applicable to ordinary civil cases, cannot be relaxed, where the cause is commercial.
Judgment:
It was held that in a case in which no written statement is filed despite the expiry of the time available in that regard, the Court can straightaway decree the suit under O8R1 CPC, keeping in mind the principles enunciated in Balraj Taneja and C.N. Ramappa Gowda case.
Case Title: Kleenoil Filtration India Pvt Ltd vs Udit Khatri & Ors.
Case No: CS(COMM) 72/2022
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice C. Hari Shankar
Advocates for Plaintiff: Mr. Chander M. Lall, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Nancy Roy, Ms. Aastha Kakkar, Mr. Prashant, and Ms. Nida Khanan.
Read Judgement @LatestLaws.com
Picture Source :
