Court’s Decision
The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dismissed the appeal challenging the Single Judge’s direction that the plaintiff must file the list of witnesses and permitted the defendant to cross-examine on legal issues, despite the absence of a written statement. The Court held that:
“Damages… have to be proved in law by adducing evidence.”
It further found no sufficient cause for condonation of the 169-day delay in filing the appeal and dismissed it both on merits and on the ground of delay.
Facts
- The appellant had filed a suit seeking damages for the alleged loss caused due to termination of service and subsequent reinstatement.
- In CS(OS) 301/2023, the Single Judge directed the appellant (plaintiff) to file a list of witnesses within four weeks.
- The Court also clarified that although the written statement was not on record, the respondent (defendant) could cross-examine the plaintiff’s witness on legal issues as per law.
- The appellant challenged this direction, arguing that the respondent’s right to file a written statement stood closed and, therefore, a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC ought to be passed in his favour.
Issues
- Whether a decree in favour of the plaintiff could be passed under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC when the defendant failed to file a written statement?
- Whether the Single Judge was justified in allowing cross-examination on legal issues despite the absence of a written statement?
- Whether the appellant was entitled to damages without proving them through evidence?
Petitioner’s Arguments
- Once the opportunity to file a written statement had closed for the respondent, the Court was bound to pass a decree under Order VIII Rule 10 CPC.
- The Single Judge erred in directing the appellant to file evidence and allowing the respondent to cross-examine on legal issues despite non-filing of a written statement.
Respondent’s Arguments
- (Not recorded in the judgment in detail, but implied from the outcome): The direction to file evidence was consistent with the law, as damages must be proved, and the absence of a written statement does not automatically entitle the plaintiff to a decree.
Analysis of the Law
- The Court reiterated that the power under Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC is discretionary and not mandatory.
- A plaintiff is not automatically entitled to a decree merely because the defendant failed to file a written statement.
- Even in the absence of a written statement, the Court can require the plaintiff to prove the claims made in the plaint, especially where damages or other substantive reliefs are sought.
Precedent Analysis
The Court relied extensively on:
- Asma Lateef & Anr. v. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors., (2024) 4 SCC 696, where the Supreme Court held:
- Order VIII Rule 10 is permissive, not mandatory.
- The Court may choose not to pronounce judgment if facts require proof, despite the non-filing of a written statement.
- A mechanical judgment cannot be passed solely on the basis of pleadings.
- Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, (1999) 8 SCC 396, where it was emphasized:
- Courts must be satisfied that no fact remains to be proved.
- If disputed questions of fact are involved, evidence must be led.
- Even deemed admissions do not relieve the plaintiff of the burden to prove their case.
Court’s Reasoning
- The Court found that since the suit claimed damages, the relief could not be granted merely on the basis of the plaint; proof through evidence was required.
- The learned Single Judge rightly exercised discretion in directing the appellant to file evidence and permitted cross-examination by the respondent.
- There was no error in refusing to pass a judgment merely due to the lack of a written statement.
Conclusion
The Delhi High Court held:
“Applying the above principles to the facts of the present case, we find no infirmity in the exercise of discretion by the learned Single Judge…”
The appeal was dismissed on the following grounds:
- No merit on the issue of automatic decree under Order VIII Rule 10.
- No sufficient explanation for a delay of 169 days in filing the appeal.
Implications
- This judgment reaffirms the discretionary nature of Order VIII Rule 10 of CPC.
- Plaintiffs seeking substantive relief such as damages must lead evidence, even if the defendant defaults in filing a written statement.
- Courts are not bound to pass decrees automatically and must ensure that the plaintiff’s claim is substantiated through proper proof.
- The decision serves as a caution to litigants that procedural lapses by the opposing party do not guarantee success without evidentiary support.
Tools