Burden of Proof in Ex Parte Suits Requires Veracity of Claim Beyond Mere Absence of Defense

The Appellant (Plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of ₹7,46,900/- against the Respondent (Defendant), an architect/civil engineer, alleging that the Respondent failed to provide services for sanctioning a building plan despite receiving ₹4,85,000/-

The Appellant claimed he paid various sums to the Respondent's alleged employees/associates between 2014 and 2016

Due to the Respondent's alleged non-cooperation, the Appellant engaged another architect, incurring an additional ₹2,00,000/-

The Respondent was proceeded ex parte before the Trial Court as he failed to appear or file a written statement

The Trial Court dismissed the suit on 04.11.2022, holding that the Plaintiff failed to establish the payments and service engagement through reliable evidence

The Appellant challenged this dismissal in the High Court

1. Whether the Plaintiff established, via reliable and admissible evidence, the payments made to the Defendant and the underlying contract for services

2. Whether the court can decree a suit in favor of a Plaintiff solely because the Defendant was proceeded ex parte

Statement identifying a key statute, principle, or precedent: The court applied the fundamental principle of civil litigation that the burden of proof lies on the plaintiff to establish the case on a balance of probabilities, even in ex parte proceedings

Statement on the doctrine derived from a case: It relied on Maya Devi v. Lalita Prasad (2015), which mandates that courts have a heighted duty to verify the factual and legal veracity of ex parte claims

Statement on the doctrine derived from a case: It further applied Pramod Shroff v. Mohan Singh Chopra (2026), establishing that courts cannot mechanically decree a suit on default and must identify real issues and record findings based on prima facie proof

The Court found that the Appellant failed to provide a nexus between the payments and the Respondent. The payment receipts (Ex.PW-1/1 to Ex.PW-1/11) were on plain paper and signed by individuals whose authorization or employment status with the Respondent was unproven

Specifically, a significant receipt of ₹2,25,000/- lacked signatures and contained unexplained Urdu/Persian script and a cross-mark, rendering it unreliable

A cheque payment to the Respondent’s alleged son-in-law was deemed inconclusive as the relationship was not established

Furthermore, the Appellant failed to produce any correspondence with the MCD or a contract/agreement to substantiate that the building plan was ever submitted or failed due to the Respondent's default

Additional documents filed at the appellate stage proved the Respondent's professional qualifications but failed to prove his specific engagement for the Appellant's project

The Court held that a suit cannot be decreed merely due to the absence of the defendant if the evidence remains insufficient or unreliable

Consequently, the High Court affirmed the Trial Court's judgment, dismissed the appeal, and disposed of all pending applications