Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
DR. JUSTICE NUPUR BHATI, J
Chandan Singh – Appellant
Versus
Adringaram – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. ex parte judgment and decree (Para 5) |
| 2. petitioner became aware of decree (Para 6 , 7) |
| 3. counsel's arguments on rejection (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. court's reasoning on absence (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. writ petition dismissed (Para 14) |
Order :
2. In the instant writ petition, the petitioner has sought following relief(s):
a. By the appropriate writ, order or direction the Hon'ble high court as deems fit may kindly allowed the application filed by the petitioner 30.08.2022 (Annexure-4) under order 37 rule 4 & 7 of CPC.
c. the Order impugned dated 28.11.2023 [Annexure-6] rejecting the application of the petitioner under order 37 rule 4 & 7 may kindly be quashed and set aside; and
e. the Appellate Order impugned dated 20.05.2024 [Annexure-7] against the order dated 28.11.2023 rejecting the application of the petitioner under order 37 rule 4 & 7 may kindly be quashed and set aside; and
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that a summary suit was preferred by the respondent/plaintiff on 11.12.2017 against the petitioner/defendant under Order XXXVII of the CPC on 08.12.2017 for recovery of Rs.3,30,000/- stating therein that the plaintiff is doing business of timber in Ahore t
The court upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's application to set aside an ex parte decree, finding no sufficient cause for his absence during proceedings.
Litigants should not suffer due to the negligence of their counsel; sufficient cause must be shown to set aside ex-parte decrees.
The court ruled that failure to serve summons for judgment invalidates an ex parte judgment, emphasizing the mandatory nature of procedural requirements under Order 37 of the CPC.
Setting aside of ex parte judgment and decree – Defendant is obliged to apply for leave to defend only after he has been served with summons for judgment.
An application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC requires compelling reasons for absence; mere negligence does not justify setting aside an ex-parte decree.
A defendant's application for leave to defend must be considered on its merits and cannot be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Negligence and lack of compelling reasons for absence in court proceedings justify the denial of applications to set aside ex-parte judgments under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC.
The need for a liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' under CPC Order IX Rule 7 to enable complete justice between the parties.
The court ruled that a defendant's failure to comply with conditions of leave under Order XXXVII Rule 4 justifies the decree, and the application to set aside the decree was not competent as it was n....
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
