• Today: November 01, 2025

Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan (AIR 1999 SC 3381)

01 November, 2025
1251
Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan (AIR 1999 SC 3381) — Easy Explainer | Order 8 Rule 10 CPC & Judgment Requirements

Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan (AIR 1999 SC 3381)

Supreme Court of India 1999 AIR 1999 SC 3381 CPC • Specific Relief 6 min read

By Gulzar Hashmi India • Published: 22 Oct 2025

Order 8 Rule 10 CPC Section 2(9) CPC Order 20 Rule 4(2) Specific Performance Readiness & Willingness
Hero image for Balraj Taneja v. Sunil Madan case explainer

Quick Summary

The Delhi High Court decreed specific performance only because the defendants did not file a written statement. The Supreme Court said this is not enough.

  • Order 8 Rule 10 CPC gives power, but courts must use it with care.
  • A valid judgment needs reasons, issues, and findings. A one-line decree is not a judgment.
  • In specific performance, the plaintiff must show readiness and willingness (Section 16(c), Specific Relief Act).

Issues

  1. Can a court decree specific performance only because no written statement was filed (Order 8 Rule 10 CPC)?
  2. Must a judgment under Order 8 Rule 10 meet the definition of “judgment” in Section 2(9) CPC and Order 20 Rule 4(2) CPC?

Rules

  • Order 8 Rule 10 CPC: Court may pronounce judgment if WS is not filed, but must see if the plaint still needs proof.
  • Section 2(9) CPC + Order 20 Rule 4(2): A judgment must state the case, points for decision, findings, and reasons.
  • Specific Relief Act, Section 16(c): Plaintiff must plead and prove readiness and willingness.
Exam Tip: “No WS” is not an automatic win. Look for disputed facts and the need for evidence.

Facts — Timeline

View Image
06 Aug 1992: Agreement to sell W-118, First Floor, GK-II, New Delhi. Price ₹7 lakh. ₹4 lakh earnest paid. Balance split as ₹2.25 lakh (post I-T permission) + ₹75,000 at sale deed.
1992–1996: Dispute on Income Tax permission. Buyer says sellers did not inform till 19 Feb 1996. Sellers say permission was obtained and sent.
20 Sep 1996: Summons served; time granted to file written statement. Final date fixed: 07 Feb 1997.
10 Feb 1997: No written statement. High Court decrees specific performance under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC. Buyer to deposit ₹3 lakh.
13 May 1997: Review dismissed.
29 Apr 1998: RFA(OS) 36/97 dismissed by Division Bench.
1999: Supreme Court allows appeal; sets aside decrees; remands case; permits filing of WS by 15 Oct 1999, else decree to revive.

Arguments — Appellant vs Respondent

Appellants (Sellers)

  • Default decree was mechanical; plaint itself shows disputes on I-T permission.
  • Specific performance needs proof of readiness and willingness.
  • Judgment lacked reasons and points for decision.

Respondent (Buyer)

  • No written statement despite time; plaint facts stand admitted.
  • Court rightly exercised power under Order 8 Rule 10.
  • Buyer ready and willing; balance was deposited.
  • Order 8 Rule 10 CPC: Power exists, but use it judicially. If facts are disputed, ask for proof.
  • Valid judgment: Must meet Section 2(9) and Order 20 Rule 4(2). Reasons are essential.
  • Specific performance: Check Section 16(c) readiness/willingness. High Court did not do this.
Result: Supreme Court set aside the decrees and remanded. Defendants allowed to file WS by 15 Oct 1999; else decree would revive.

Ratio Decidendi

No automatic decrees. Absence of a written statement does not excuse the court from testing the plaint, identifying issues, and giving reasons. Specific performance needs strict proof of readiness and willingness.

Why It Matters

  • Clarifies limits of Order 8 Rule 10 CPC.
  • Reinforces the anatomy of a valid judgment.
  • Sets the bar for specific performance pleadings and proof.

Key Takeaways

  • 1 “No WS” ≠ automatic decree; apply mind.
  • 2 Judgment must record issues, findings, reasons.
  • 3 Specific performance demands Section 16(c) proof.
  • 4 If plaint shows disputes, take evidence.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “NO WS? STILL TEST.”

  • NO WS → No written statement.
  • STILL → Still identify issues and reasons.
  • TEST → Test readiness & willingness; ask for proof.

3-Step Hook:

  1. Scan the plaint: Any disputed facts?
  2. Frame points: Note issues and apply law.
  3. Record reasons: Speak to Section 16(c) before relief.

IRAC Outline

Issue

Can specific performance be decreed only due to non-filing of WS? What must a judgment contain?

Rule

Order 8 Rule 10 CPC is discretionary; Section 2(9) and Order 20 Rule 4(2) require a reasoned judgment.

Application

Plaint showed a live dispute on I-T permission, affecting readiness and willingness. Evidence was needed.

Conclusion

Default decree was improper. Orders set aside; case remanded with a chance to file WS.

Glossary

Order 8 Rule 10 CPC
Lets court pronounce judgment if WS is not filed, with judicial caution.
Section 2(9) CPC
Defines “judgment”; reasons are a must.
Order 20 Rule 4(2)
Judgment should state points for decision and findings.
Section 16(c) SRA
Plaintiff must be ready and willing to perform the contract.

Student FAQs

Not always. The court must still see if facts need proof. If yes, it should not pass a straight decree.

A clear statement of facts, framed issues, decisions on each, and reasons. Without reasons, it is defective.

Specific performance is equitable. Plaintiff must show clean conduct and ability to perform at all times.

It set aside the High Court decree and remanded. Defendants were allowed to file WS by 15 Oct 1999.
Reviewed by The Law Easy
Civil Procedure Specific Relief Case Law

© 2025 The Law Easy

Comment

Nothing for now