Back
ABHAY S. OKA, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Ranjit Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Uttarakhand – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
ABHAY S OKA, J.
CIVIL APPEAL NOS.2399-2401/2023
1. The appellants are the defendants in a suit filed by the first respondent and one Shanti Devi, who is no more and has been shown as the third respondent in these Appeals. For convenience, we are referring to the parties with reference to their status in the suit. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.
2. The suit was filed on 8th November, 2001 for possession of the property, more particularly described in the schedule (suit property). The allegation in the suit is that the first defendant, the State of Uttaranchal (now Uttarakhand), was a tenant of the plaintiffs in respect of the suit property at a monthly rent of Rs.86,232/- (Rupees Eighty-six Thousand Two Hundred and Thirtytwo), which was fixed by an order dated 18th May, 1999 passed by the learned 3rd Additional District Judge, Dehradun. The allegation is that though the rent was fixed with effect from 1st September, 1993, the first defendant did not pay the rent. Therefore, the plaintiffs issued a notice of termination of tenancy under Section 106 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. As the defendants failed to comply with the said notice, the suit for ev
Ex-parte proceeding – Even if a defendant does not file a written statement and suit is ordered to proceed ex-parte against him, limited defence available to defendant is not foreclosed.
Striking out defence of defendant – Judicial discretion must not be exercised in favour of a party indulging in contumacious defiance.
Court can strike off defense for non-compliance with rent payment orders, emphasizing that defiance of court directives is unacceptable and justifies severe consequences.
The court held that excess rent payments negate claims of default, emphasizing judicial discretion in striking off defenses under Order XV Rule V of C.P.C.
An ex-parte decree can only be set aside if the defendant proves that summons was not duly served or that there was sufficient cause for their absence. The burden of proof lies with the defendant to ....
The court upheld the trial court's discretion in rejecting the application to restore a suit dismissed for default, finding no sufficient cause for the appellants' absence during proceedings.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that an ex-parte decree is to be set aside only if grounds therefor are made out and if such setting aside is necessary to enable the defendant to ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
