Madras High Court· 19 August 2026
Must an ex parte judgment under the Civil Procedure Code contain the points for determination and the reasons for the decision?
Chinnammal (Died), Dharmaraj v. S.Eswari
CRP(MD).1821/2026 · 2026:MHC:3412 · C.R.P.(MD)No.1821 of 2026
Coram: Justice S.Sounthar
Answer
Yes. Order 20 Rule 4(2) lays down that a judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. Whether the case is contested, proceeds ex parte, or is decided under Order 8 Rule 10, the Court has to write a judgment in conformity with the provisions of the Code or at least set out the reasoning by which the controversy is resolved, and the ex parte judgment must reflect application of mind on the averment in the plaint and the evidence let in.
Headnote
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 20 Rule 4(2) — Order 9 Rule 13 — s.96 — s.114 — Constitution of India — Article 227 — Ex parte decree — Reasons in the judgment — Supervisory jurisdiction — Laches — Alternative remedy —
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Order 20 Rule 4(2) — Ex parte judgment — Procedural law mandates reasons —
Held: Even where the defendant is set ex parte, the judgment must contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reasons for such decision, and must reflect application of mind by the trial Court. (¶9, 24)
Constitution of India — Article 227 — Supervisory power — Circumscribed by the doctrine of laches —
Held further: There is no time limit for invoking the supervisory power under Article 227, but a person approaching with long delay must explain the reasons for laches, and where it is not explained the Court can refuse to exercise the power. (¶11)
Constitution of India — Article 227 — Alternative remedy — Near total bar on supervisory jurisdiction —
Held further: The existence of an alternative remedy before the regular civil Court is a near total bar to supervisory jurisdiction, and a party who availed Order 9 Rule 13 and allowed that dismissal to attain finality cannot invoke it. (¶14)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — Revisional jurisdiction — Purely discretionary — Court may refuse to interfere despite error —
Held further: The revisional power being purely discretionary, the Court may refuse to interfere even with an erroneous order where interference will result in injustice to the decree holder. Revision dismissed on the ground of laches. (¶15, 22, 25)
In the Court's own words
Paragraph 9A close scanning of above mentioned judgment would make it clear that even in cases where the defendant is set exparte, the trial Court is required to consider the averment in the plaint, necessity of leading evidence to prove the same, sufficiency of evidence let in by the plaintiff and thereafter, determine the points arising for consideration. If the Court ultimately satisfied with the assertion made by the plaintiff and the tenability of the prayer, can pass an ex parte decree granting relief to the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2026 05:12:59 pm ) plaintiff. Therefore, the ex parte judgment should necessarily reflect application of mind by the trial Court on the pleadings of the plaintiff, evidence etc.
Paragraph 24In the case on hand, the trial court has committed an error in not delivering the judgment by adhering to the ingredients as contained in Order 20 Rule 4(2) of CPC. The object behind the said provision is that the judgment shall contain reasonings for the conclusions to enable the https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2026 05:12:59 pm ) superior forum to understand the justifiable reasons for conclusions reached by the trial Court. In the absence of reasoning in the judgment, the correctness of the same cannot be tested before the superior forum. Therefore, the procedural law mandates, the judgment shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision there on and the reasons for such decision. In case the said mandate under Order 20 Rule 4(2) of C.P.C., has not been adhered to, the appellate or superior forum will not be in a position to test the correctness of the conclusions and it will cause prejudice to the party filing an appeal. In the case on hand, the petitioners herein, for the reasons well known to them, failed to file any appeal challenging the ex parte judgment and decree passed against them. Therefore, absolutely there was no occasion for the superior forum to test the correctness of the same and the ex parte judgment has been allowed to attain finality. In the absence of any appeal filed by the petitioners challenging the ex parte decree, the ex parte judgment passed by the trial Court without adhering to the ingredients of the above said Rule will not cause any prejudice to the petitioners. On the other hand, as I mentioned earlier much water has flown under the bridge, after the ex parte decree. In fact, pursuant to the the ex parte decree for specific https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 20/08/2026 05:12:59 pm ) performance, a sale deed was executed in favour of the first respondent/decree holder as early as 03.09.2007. After waiting for 19 years, the petitioners want to take advantage of the technicalities, rules of procedure and attempts to challenge the decree by invoking supervisory power. If this Court chooses to interfere in revision, in the present case, it will certainly result in grave injustice to the first respondent/decree holder, who got the sale deed executed pursuant to the decree long back. Therefore, I feel that it is not a fit case to invoke the revisional jurisdiction on the technical points raised by the petitioners.
Acts & Sections
Order 20 Rule 4(2) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order 9 Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.2(9) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.96 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.114 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s.115 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Order 8 Rule 10 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908Article 227 Constitution of IndiaOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
Read the full text of Chinnammal (Died), Dharmaraj v. S.Eswari — and get the Supreme Court's output as a five-minute daily read, with plain-language headnotes and the questions each judgment settles.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Open the full judgment →