SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img



IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Tushar Rao Gedela, J.
Harsha Soni - Appellant
Versus
Suraj Bhan - Respondent
CM(M) 1279 of 2022 and CM No. 50567 of 2022
Decided On : 15-12-2022




Procedural fairness must prevail in legal proceedings; courts should prioritize resolving matters on merits over strict adherence to procedural technicalities.

Headnote:(A) Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Section 151 - Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 - Ex parte proceeding - Petitioner was unaware of the suit and was not served summons, leading to ex parte order on 06.07.2017 - Application under Section 151 CPC dismissed by Trial Court for setting aside ex parte order - Importance of determining factors in adjudication stressed - Respondents agreed to set aside the impugned order in the interest of justice - Court emphasized resolution on merits rather than technicalities - Quash of ex parte proceedings allowed subject to costs. (Paras 2 to 9)

(B) The court holds the necessity for fair justice over procedural technicalities and the significance of the merits in examining cases. (Paras 8 and 9)

Facts of the case:
Petitioner was not informed of the suit from 2017 until January 2022 and was subsequently proceeded against ex parte.

Findings of Court:
The court quashed the ex parte proceedings stating that justice should prevail over technicalities, allowing the petitioner to file responses along with costs.

Issues: The main issue addressed was whether to set aside the ex parte order due to lack of service and the impact of procedural fairness on adjudication.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that merit-based resolutions are preferable to rigid adherence to procedural technicalities, particularly where significant justice is at stake.

Result: Impugned orders quashed, subject to costs of Rs. 5,000/-.

Table of Content
1. formal initiation and closure of proceedings. (Para 1 , 11)
2. importance of service of summons in legal proceedings. (Para 2 , 3 , 4)
3. consideration of explanations in applications. (Para 5 , 7)
4. judicial discretion favors substantial justice over technicalities. (Para 6 , 8)
5. setting aside of ex parte orders subject to costs. (Para 9 , 10)

JUDGMENT

Tushar Rao Gedela, J. (ORAL)

[The proceeding has been conducted through Hybrid mode]

1. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, petition is taken up for hearing today.

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner was never served with the summons of the suit in the year 2017. In the meanwhile, Trial Court vide order dated 06.07.2017 had proceeded the Petitioner ex parte.

3. Learned counsel submits that it was only during the first week of January, 2022 that she was informed about the pendency of the suit by Defendant No.2 and after certain enquiries and inspecting the file, the Petitioner came to know that she was proceeded exparte as far back as on 06.07.2017.

4. Without wasting any time, Petitioner had approached the learned Trial Court with an application under Section 151 CPC seeking setting aside of the exparte order along with written statement and reply to application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC as filed by the Respondent.

5. Learned counsel submits that the learned Trial Court did not consider the explanation tendered by the Petitioner in the application under Section 151 CPC and dismissed the same vide the impugned order.

6. It is trite that the contents of the application would be the determining factors to adjudicate in a Court of law rather than the provision or nomenclature under which the relief is sought in that application.

7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondents fairly agrees, in the interest of justice, that the impugned order be set aside and the written statement along with reply to the application under Order 39 Rule 1 and 2 CPC is taken on record. However, the Petitioner may be subjected to heavy costs for the delay.

8. In view of the above submissions, this Court is of the opinion that interest of justice would be sub-served as also for the reason that the disputes should be adjudicated on merits rather than on technicalities, the impugned order be set aside.

9. Accordingly, impugned order dated 22.08.2022 as well as order dated 06.07.2017 whereby the Petitioner was proceeded exparte are quashed and set aside subject to payment of costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the Respondent on or before 19.12.2022.

10. In view of the fact that the impugned orders have been quashed, learned Trial Court is directed to take the written statement and reply to the application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC filed by the petitioner on record. Replication and rejoinder respectively, if any, be filed within the time to be granted by the Trial Court on 19.12.2022, the date already fixed before it.

11. With these directions, petition and the application filed herewith are disposed of.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top