IMPORTANT POINT
When a counsel for a party reports "no instruction" in a case and party is not present before the Court, the Court should issue notice to party before proceeding ex-parte.

Headnote:Civil Procedure Code, 1908-Order 9 Rule 13-Suit for damages-Defendant appellant engaged counsel to defend them-Counsel pleaded "no instruction" and appellants were proceeded ex-parte-Court did not issue any notice to appellants who were not present when their counsel reported no instructions-Appellants were neither careless nor negligent in defending suit-Trial Court in the interest of justice should have allowed the application for setting aside ex-parte order and decree-Appellants could not be said to be at fault and should not suffer. (Paras 6 and 7)

Judgement Key Points

Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:

The case involves a civil dispute where the appellants, who were tried and convicted in a criminal case, also faced a civil suit for damages filed by the respondents (!) .
The appellants engaged legal counsel to defend them in the civil suit. During proceedings, the counsel reported "no instructions" on a specific date, leading to the appellants being proceeded ex-parte without prior notice to them (!) (!) .
The appellants only became aware of the ex-parte order and decree after they inquired from their counsel several months later. They promptly filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order and decree (!) (!) .
The trial court dismissed the application, and the appellants' subsequent appeals also failed. The higher courts dismissed their civil revision petition, leading to this appeal by special leave (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that the appellants had engaged legal counsel and were actively following the proceedings. Since the counsel reported no instructions without issuing any notice to the appellants, it was unjust to hold them at fault for the ex-parte proceedings (!) .
The court noted that the appellants acted promptly upon learning of the proceedings and were neither negligent nor careless in defending the suit. The failure to issue notice to the appellants was a procedural lapse that warranted setting aside the ex-parte order and decree (!) .
The court referred to established principles that when a counsel reports "no instructions," and the party is not present or notified, the court should issue a notice before proceeding ex-parte. Failure to do so is contrary to principles of natural justice (!) .
Based on these considerations, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the ex-parte order and decree, and remanded the case to the trial court to proceed from the stage where the proceedings were halted, ensuring justice is served (!) (!) .
No costs were awarded, and the case was directed to be disposed of in accordance with law (!) .

Would you like a more detailed analysis or assistance with any specific aspect of this case?

ORDER

Special leave granted.

2. The appellants were tried for the murder of one Harpal Singh and on conviction, were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the learned Special Court, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 1.4.1985. The respondents, it appears, on 16.8.89 filed a suit in the Court of learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Samrala claiming damages from the appellants to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for deprivation of the income to the family members which they used to get from deceased Harpal Singh. The claim in the suit was contested by the appellants. They filed their written statement and engaged a counsel to defend the suit. The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed a number of issues. After two witnesses for the plaintiffs in that suit had been examined and cross examined, it transpires that, on 18.11.1991, learned counsel who had been engaged by the appellants herein for defending them in the suit, pleaded "no instructions" before the court. As a result of the counsel pleading no instructions, the appellants were proceeded ex-parte. On 8.2.1992, the learned trial Court passed an ex-parte decree against the appellants.

3. The appellants went to enquire about the proceedings in the case from their counsel. On 6.6.1992, on their enquiry, their counsel informed them that he had pleaded "no instructions" as a result of which they were proceeded ex-parte and the suit had been decreed ex-parte on 8.2.1992. The appellants then engaged another counsel and on 10.6.1992, filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 18.11.1991 and the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 8.2.1992. While that application was pending adjudication, the appeal filed by the appellants against their conviction and sentence was heard by this court. On 7.3.1995, the order of conviction and sentence was set aside.

4. The trial Court dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. on 22.1.1996. Their appeal failed before the learned District Judge on 18.10.1996. The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition filed by them in-limine on 13.12.1996. Hence this appeal by special leave.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties in this appeal and perused the record.

6. There is no denying the fact that the appellants had engaged a counsel to defend them in the civil suit. The counsel for the appellants pleaded "no instructions" but the court did not issue any notice to the appellants, who were admittedly to not present on the date when their counsel reported no instructions in the court. It is nobody s case that the counsel informed them after he had reported no instructions to the court. The appellants only came to know about the order dated 18.11.1991 and the ex-parte decree dated 8.2.1992 when they approached their counsel on 6.6.1992. It was within four days thereafter that the appellants filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 18.11.1991 and the decree dated 8.12.1992.

7. The appellants in their application clearly pleaded that they were neither careless nor negligent and as soon as they learnt about the ex-parte decree dated 8.2.1992 and the order dated 18.11.1991, they filed the application to set aside the order and ex-parte decree. A perusal of the record also reveals that the appellants were neither careless nor negligent in defending the suit. They had engaged a counsel and were following the proceedings. In this fact situation, the trial Court, which had admittedly not issued any notice to the appellants after their counsel had reported no instructions, should have, in the interest of justice, allowed that application and proceeded in the case from the stage when the counsel reported no instructions. The appellants cannot, in the facts and circumstances of the case, be said to be at fault and they should not suffer. In taking this view, we are fortified by a judgment of thi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1997 Supreme(SC) 1569

IMPORTANT POINTWhen a counsel for a party reports "no instruction" in a case and party is not present before the Court, the Court should issue notice to party before proceeding ex-parte.

Cases Referred (1)

IMPORTANT POINT
When a counsel for a party reports "no instruction" in a case and party is not present before the Court, the Court should issue notice to party before proceeding ex-parte.