Plaintiff Must Prove Claim Even In Ex-Parte Proceedings: Delhi HC

The Delhi High Court held that a plaintiff must establish their case through credible evidence even if the defendant does not contest the proceedings, emphasizing that courts cannot mechanically decree a suit on default without examining the factual and legal validity of the claims.

A bench of Justice Neena Bansal Krishna heard the Regular First Appeal challenging a lower court's decision to dismiss a recovery suit despite the defendant being proceeded against ex-parte. The Court examined whether the mere absence of a defense entitles a plaintiff to a favorable judgment when the supporting evidence remains insufficient or unreliable.

Establishing Cause of Action in Ex-Parte Proceedings

The Court observed that the fundamental principle in civil litigation remains that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff. Highlighting the judiciary's responsibility in uncontested matters, the Court, in its reasoning, observed: "The Apex Court in the case of Maya Devi vs. Lalita Prasad ( "(2015) 5 SCC 350": 2014 CaseBase(SC) 617), emphasised that when a defendant has been proceeded against ex parte, the court is under an even greater duty to satisfy itself about the factual and legal veracity of the Plaintiff’s claim. In the recent case of Pramod Shroff vs. Mohan Singh Chopra ( "2026 SCC OnLine SC 589": 2026 CaseBase(SC) 330), the Apex court held that even when a defendant fails to appear or file a written statement, the court cannot dispense with the points for determination altogether. The Plaintiff must show prima facie proof qua the existence of relevant facts and circumstances, from which the cause of action has arisen. Simply put, a court cannot mechanically decree on default, it must identify the real issues, examine the plaintiff’s evidence on each and record findings."

Evidentiary Deficiencies and Unreliable Receipts

During the scrutiny of the evidence, the Court found that the receipts produced by the appellant lacked basic authentication. Most receipts were on plain paper, signed by individuals with no established link to the defendant. The Court noted that without official stamps, seals, or proof of agency, such documents hold no evidentiary value. Furthermore, the Court pointed out gaps in the narrative, specifically the lack of communication from the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) to prove that the building plan sanctioning process failed due to the defendant's negligence.

Background:

The appellant had filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 7,46,900/-, alleging that the respondent, a registered architect, failed to provide agreed-upon services for obtaining building plan sanctions from the MCD. The appellant claimed to have paid Rs. 4,85,000/- through various installments to the defendant's associates and employees. When the services were not rendered and the respondent stopped communicating, the appellant initiated legal action under Section 96 read with Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Despite being served, the respondent did not appear, leading to ex-parte proceedings. However, the Additional District Judge dismissed the suit, finding the evidence specifically the receipts and a cheque insufficient to connect the payments to the respondent. The High Court, upon review, agreed with the trial court's assessment, noting that the documents were inconclusive and failed to establish a clear cause of action. The appeal was subsequently dismissed, maintaining that the plaintiff failed to bridge the evidentiary gaps necessary for a decree.

Case Details:
Case No.: RFA NO. 189/2023, CM APPL. 11289/2023
Case Title: SH. FIDA HUSSAIN v. SH. ABDUL WAHID
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sunil Lalwani, Advocate.
For the Respondent(s): None.

Source: 2026 CaseBase(DEL) 407