Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.25 seconds)The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Section 34 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
R.Balakrishna Pillai vs State Of Kerala on 28 February, 2003
The Hon'ble Apex Court in Ramesh Chand
Ardawatiya v. Anil Panjwani, (2003) 7 SCC 350 explained the law
with regard to burden of proof of plaintiff in an exparte suit. The
observations of the Hon'ble Apex court may be reproduced herewith
as follows:
"Even if the suit proceeds ex parte and in the absence of
a written statement, unless the applicability of Order 8
Rule 10 CPC is attracted and the court acts thereunder,
the necessity of proof by the plaintiff company of his case
to the satisfaction of the court cannot be dispensed with.
In the absence of denial of plaint averments the burden of
proof on the plaintiff company is not very heavy. A prima
facie proof of the relevant facts constituting the cause of
action would suffice and the court would grant the
plaintiff company such relief as to which he may in law
be found entitled. In a case which has proceeded ex parte
the court is not bound to frame issues under Order 14
and deliver the judgment on every issue as required by
Order 20 Rule 5. Yet the trial court should scrutinize the
available pleadings and documents, consider the
evidence adduced, and would do well to frame the
"points for determination" and proceed to construct the
ex parte judgment dealing with the points at issue one by
one. Merely because the defendant is absent the court
shall not admit evidence the admissibility whereof is
excluded by law nor permit its decision being influenced
by irrelevant or inadmissible evidence."
1