Ex parte judgments must specify points for determination to satisfy procedural requirements and avoid prejudice.

The Appellant entered into an agreement for sale in 1977 with the Respondent for the purchase of a flat in "Shalimar Apartments," Kolkata, for ₹95,000.

The Appellant paid ₹90,000, took possession, and received original title documents, with the remaining ₹5,000 payable upon execution of the conveyance deed.

Despite repeated requests, the Respondent failed to execute the deed, leading the Appellant to file a suit for specific performance.

The Respondent did not appear, and the suit proceeded ex parte.

The trial court dismissed the suit on the grounds that the Appellant failed to prove the Respondent's title to the property.

The High Court of Calcutta affirmed this dismissal in 2025.

The Appellant contended that since the court failed to frame issues regarding the Respondent’s title, he was never put on notice to lead evidence on that specific point.

The Court applied Section 2(9) of the CPC, defining "judgment" as the statement of grounds for a decree, and Section 2(2) regarding the finality of a decree.

It analyzed Order XIV Rule 1(6), which states framing issues is not mandatory if the defendant makes no defense, alongside Order XX Rule 4(2), which requires judgments to contain a concise statement, points for determination, the decision, and reasons.

The Court relied on Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani, holding that even in ex parte cases, courts should frame "points for determination" to scrutinize available evidence.

It further cited Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan, emphasizing that a judgment must be a self-contained document resolving the controversy with reasoning, regardless of whether it is contested or ex parte.

Finally, it applied Man Kaur v. Hartar Singh Sangha regarding the three essentials of specific performance: a valid contract, breach by the defendant, and readiness/willingness of the plaintiff.

The Court reasoned that while Order XIV Rule 1(6) excuses the framing of formal issues in the absence of a defense, this does not exempt a judge from the requirements of Order XX Rule 4(2) regarding "points for determination".

The "points for determination" serve as the court's restatement of disputed questions to ensure complete adjudication.

In this case, the trial court dismissed the suit because the Appellant failed to prove the Respondent’s title, yet no such issue or point for determination was ever framed.

Since the Respondent’s title was not contested in any pleading, the Appellant had no reason to believe he needed to lead evidence on that specific fact.

The Court found that this omission caused substantial prejudice to the Appellant, as the "touchstone" for prejudice is whether a party had knowledge that a particular question was in issue and had the opportunity to lead evidence on it.

Consequently, the judgment failed to meet the statutory standards of a reasoned adjudication under Section 2(9) of the CPC.

It held that a judgment, even if ex parte, must identify legal points and provide a reasoned answer to be sustainable.

The matter was remanded to the trial court for fresh consideration with directions to: (i) issue notice to the Respondent, (ii) allow completion of pleadings, (iii) frame specific issues, and (iv) provide parties the opportunity to lead evidence.

The trial court was directed to expedite the case given its 2007 origin.