IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH AT SHIMLA
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, J.
Shadi Lal & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
Surinder Kumar Sharma - Respondent
CMPMO No. 127 of 2021
Decided On : 30-07-2021
Ex-parte Decree - Setting Aside - Quashing of Orders
Fact of the Case:
The respondent filed a civil suit against the petitioners for recovery of Rs.2,60,000/- along with interest. The petitioners failed to appear in court, leading to an ex-parte judgment and decree against them. Their subsequent application to set aside the ex-parte judgment was dismissed by the lower courts.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the petitioners had shown their bona fides by crediting the amount claimed by the respondent into the respondent's bank account during the pendency of the petition. Without examining the merits of the matter, the court quashed the impugned orders and remanded the matter back to the trial court for a fresh decision.
Issues: The main issue was the setting aside of the ex-parte judgment and decree passed against the petitioners.
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the subsequent developments, including the petitioners' payment to the respondent, and deemed it in the interest of justice to quash the impugned orders and remand the matter for a fresh decision.
Final Decision: The court allowed the instant petition, quashed the impugned orders, and remanded the matter back to the trial court for a fresh decision.
ORDER
Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Judge (Oral). - The sole respondent though stands served for 09.07.2021, however, none has put in appearance on his behalf on 09.07.2021, 16.07.2021, 24.07.2021 and even today i.e. 30.07.2021. Hence, the respondent is ordered to be proceeded ex parte.
2. The petitioners' application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 05.10.2009 passed in Civil Suit No. 101/2009, has been dismissed by learned Courts below. Hence, the instant petition has been preferred by them under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.
3(i). The civil suit was filed by the respondent against the petitioners for recovery of Rs.2,60,000/- alongwith interest. Petitioners contested the suit as defendants. The civil suit was initially pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, Una. It was thereafter transferred to the Court of learned Civil Judge Junior Division Court Noil, Amb, District Una. H.P on account of enhancement in the pecuniary jurisdiction. On 18.09.2009, none appeared for the petitioners in the civil suit, hence, they were proceeded ex-parte. On 05.10.2009, an ex-parte judgment and decree was passed against the petitioners.
3(ii). On 07.10.2010, the petitioners moved an application for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated 05.10.2009. The main ground urged was that due to transfer of the civil suit from one Court to another, the petitioners could not keep track of the case. Their application was dismissed by the learned trial Court on 26.12.2018 holding that no sufficient reason had been given by the petitioners for their non-appearance on 18.09.2009 and 05.10.2009. It was also noticed that the application for setting aside ex-parte decree was moved after more than a year from the date of pronouncement of the ex-parte judgment and decree.
The order dated 26.12.2018 has been affirmed by the learned Additional District Judge-I, Una, on 03.03.2021. It is in this background that the instant petition has been filed by the petitioners challenging the aforesaid two orders dismissing their application moved under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
4. During hearing of the case, learned Senior counsel for the petitioners submitted that in terms of ex-parte judgment and decree dated 05.10.2009, the suit filed by the respondent has been decreed for recovery of Rs.2,60,000/- alongwith interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of payment. A scanned copy of the judgment and decree has been placed on record. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that he has instructions from the petitioners to state that under a cheque issued by petitioner No.1 in favour of the respondent, an amount of Rs. 1,50,000/- has been credited into the bank account of respondent on 17.07.2021. Learned Senior counsel further stated that in similar manner, an amount of Rs. 1,10,000/- has also been credited into the respondent's bank account on 26.07.2021.
In view of the above subsequent developments, I am of the considered view that for advancing the cause of justice, the impugned orders deserve to be quashed and set aside. The petitioners have shown their bona fides inasmuch as during the pendency of instant petition an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- has been credited by them into the bank account of the respondent. The ex-parte decree passed against the petitioners is for an amount of Rs.2,60,000/- with interest @ 6% per annum from the date of filing the suit till the date of payment. Despite service of notice, respondent has chosen not to contest the instant petition. Therefore, without examining the merits of the matter, but considering the subsequent developments, it will be in the interest of justice to quash the impugned orders.
Accordingly, the instant petition is allowed. The impugned orders dated 26.12.2018 in CMANo.393/2010, passed by the learned Civil Judge, Court No.11, Amb District Una and order dated 03.03.2021 in Civil Miscellaneo
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.