Back
GOUTAM BHADURI, N. K. CHANDRAVANSHI
Raghvendra Pandey, S/o. Late Krishnakant Pandey – Appellant
Versus
Neelima Ajay Mishra W/o. Ajay Mishra – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
Goutam Bhaduri, J.
Heard.
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the order dated 21/12/2021 passed by the 8th Additional District Judge, Raipur, in Civil Suit No.27A/2019, whereby an ex-parte decree for possession and partition was allowed. The plaintiff/respondent filed a suit for partition and the pleading show the claims were routed through a WILL in the initial plaint. The plaintiff claimed for 1/3rd share in respect of the suit property and possession was also claimed for. After notice the order-sheet of the Court below would show that time was sought for to file written statement by the appellant and eventually on 27/11/2019 since no appearance was made they were proceeded ex-parte. Subsequent, thereto the plaintiff/respondent amended the plaint and instead of 1/3rd share, half of the share was claimed and further money claim was also made. The said amendment was allowed and accordingly the prayer was amended. Subsequent to first amendment another amendment was also incorporated. So both the substantial amendments were carried out while the defendant appellant was ex-parte. Thereafter, the ex-parte judgment and decree was passed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant would s
The Trial Court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and against the appellant without ensuring notice to the appellant and/or his counsel had been effected was in violation ....
If summons issued on the correct address have not been returned, the presumption is that the summons has been received by the addressee.
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.
Court emphasized a liberal approach in allowing amendments under Order VI Rule 17, especially when necessary for complete adjudication and no significant prejudice to other party is caused.
Amendment of Written Statement – Inordinate delay in filing application for amendment of written statement cannot be allowed.
The concept of 'sufficient cause' under Order IX Rule 13 CPC must be judged objectively, and the party seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree must provide a reasonable cause for their non-appearance....
The judgment emphasizes the need for substantial justice over technical considerations, warranting a full-length trial to investigate rival claims and the theory of probability.
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
