SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
M.R. SHAH, B.V. NAGARATHNA, JJ.
Nanda Dulal Pradhan & Anr. - Appellants
Versus
Dibakar Pradhan & Anr. - Respondents
Civil Appeal No. 4151 of 2022
Decided On : 11-07-2022
ex-parte judgment and decree - Civil Procedure Code - Order IX Rule 13, Order I Rule 10, Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - TS No.317 of 2003 - Sangram Singh Versus Election Tribunal, AIR 1955 SC 425 - Arjun Singh Versus Mohindra Kumar, AIR 1964 SC 993
Fact of the Case:
The original plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and title. The original defendant nos. 2 & 3 failed to file the written statement and remained absent, leading to an ex-parte judgment and decree. The First Appellate Court set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, allowing the defendants to participate in the suit proceedings. The High Court set aside the First Appellate Court's order solely on the ground that the defendants did not file the written statement.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court's decision to set aside the First Appellate Court's order was unsustainable as the defendants could participate in the suit proceedings and cross-examine witnesses despite not filing the written statement.
Issues: The main issue was whether the defendants, who failed to file the written statement, could participate in the suit proceedings after the ex-parte judgment and decree was set aside.
Ratio Decidendi: On setting aside an ex-parte judgment and decree, the defendants may not be permitted to file the written statement but can participate in the suit proceedings and cross-examine witnesses.
Final Decision: The High Court's decision was set aside, and the First Appellate Court's order to restore the suit and allow the defendants to participate in the suit proceedings was upheld.
JUDGMENT :
M.R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order dated 16.05.2018 passed by the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack in C.M.P. No.324 of 2018 by which the High Court has observed and held that mere setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree would serve no purpose as the defendants cannot lead evidence in the absence of written statement filed by them and consequently setting aside the order passed by the First Appellate Court who allowed the appellants herein – original defendant nos. 2 and 3 to adduce the evidence apart from setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree, the original defendant nos. 2 & 3 have preferred the present appeal.
2. That the respondent no.1 herein – original plaintiff instituted the suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jaleswar being TS No.317 of 2003, for declaration and title. The appellants – original defendant nos. 2 & 3 moved an impleadment application in the suit which was allowed. That thereafter the application under Order I Rule 10 of the CPC was allowed on 20.02.2004. The learned Trial Court fixed the next date as 27.02.2004 for filing the written statement. The appellants herein – original defendant nos. 2 & 3 (hereinafter referred to as “original defendant nos. 2 & 3”) sought time to file the written statement on various dates. However, they failed to file the written statement even after availing several opportunities. The original defendant nos. 2 & 3 also remained absent on number of dates. Therefore, neither did they file the written statement in the suit nor did they appear before the learned Trial Court. Thereafter the learned Trial Court passed an ex-parte judgment and decree dated 31.08.2004. In the above circumstances, defendant nos. 2 & 3 filed the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. The learned Trial Court dismissed the said application and refused to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. Hence defendant nos. 2 & 3 preferred the appeal before the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court allowed the said appeal by setting aside the order passed by the learned Trial Court dismissing the application to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. The First Appellate Court also passed an order to restore the suit to file and thereafter to dispose of the suit after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties to adduce their respective evidence and rebuttal evidence. Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the First Appellate Court in allowing the appeal and setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree and the order directing that the matter be disposed of afresh in accordance with law after affording adequate opportunity to the parties to adduce their respective evidence and rebuttal evidence, the original plaintiff filed the present petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court. By the impugned judgment and order and without considering and/or observing anything on the findings recorded by the First Appellate Court on whether there was a sufficient cause made out to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, the High Court has set aside the order passed by the First Appellate Court setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree solely on the ground that as no written statement was filed on behalf of the defendant nos. 2 & 3 the reopening of the suit would become futile. Thereby the High Court has set aside the order passed by the First Appellate Court setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree.
2.1 Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, the original defendant nos. 2 & 3 have preferred the present appeal.
3. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties and considering the order passed by the First Appellate Court setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree and observing that on restoration of the suit the sa
On setting aside an ex-parte judgment and decree, defendants may participate in the suit proceedings and cross-examine witnesses, even if they did not file the written statement.
Setting aside ex-parte decree – Once ex-parte decree is set aside and suit is restored to file, defendants cannot be relegated back to position prior to date of hearing of suit.
A decree passed ex-parte due to the failure to file a written statement within the prescribed time is not covered under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code, and therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction to s....
In the case which does not fall within four corners of Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, Court has no jurisdiction to set aside ex-parte decree.
The High Court should not entertain a revision petition under Article 227 against an ex-parte judgment and decree when a specific remedy of appeal is available under the Code of Civil Procedure itsel....
A defendant may set aside an ex-parte decree if sufficient cause for absence is shown, as per Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC.
Setting aside ex-parte decree – Real test for adjudication of a petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is whether litigant upon learning about ex-parte decree takes immediate steps in filing application....
Setting aside ex-parte decree – Facts and events relating to passing of an ex-parte decree are distinct from facts and events relating to delayed filing of application for setting aside of ex-parte d....
The court emphasized procedural fairness in civil trials, ruling that time extensions for filing should not be routine but based on justifiable reasons, allowing parties their due process rights.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.