Haridas Mundhra vs Indian Cable Co. Ltd. on 10 July, 1964
Order 49 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not except the application of the provisions of Order 14 to any Chartered High Court in the exercise of its ordinary or extra-ordinary civil jurisdiction. Consequently the provisions of Order 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure must be observed in the trial of any suit before the High Court in its original jurisdiction. Counsel for the defendant was certainly not justified in the attitude taken by him in his refusal to help in the framing of the issues but that did not absolve the Court from framing issues unless it was satisfied that the defendant did not want to make any defence. The Court minutes do not lend itself to the construction that counsel for the defendant did not raise any issues because there was no case to contest. Inasmuch as the defendant had in his written statement merely acknowledged the execution of the three letters without admitting the plaintiff's claim more than one issue arose on the pleadings and the learned trial Judge should have directed his attention to the settling of the same. It was argued by counsel for the plaintiff that the effect of not raising any issues implied the abandonment thereof and a number of decisions was cited on this point. The case of Nagappa v. Siddalingappa, AIR 1919 Mad 698 was one where the defendant did not raise any question as to the execution of a mortgage in a suit upon it and no issue was framed with reference to this point. It was observed by the Madras High Court that
"an omission to raise an issue on a question of fact implies an abandonment of that question by the party interested."