Back
2000 Supreme(P&H) 1361
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
M.L. Singhal, J.
Gram Panchayat, Sarswati Khera - Petitioner
Versus
Ram Kishan and others - Respondent
C.R. 613 of 1987.
Decided On : 10 November, 2000
For the Petitioner:Mr. B.S. Kathuria, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. S.K. Goyal, Advocate.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and the emphasis on substantive justice over procedural rules.
Headnote:
ex parte decree - Civil Procedure - Order 9 Rule 13 CPC - JT 1997(9) SC 642, AIR 1981 J&K 95, AIR 1977 SC 2319 - The court discussed the negligence of the counsel, the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, and the liberal approach to setting aside ex parte decrees. The court emphasized that the defendant's neglect due to the counsel's actions constitutes a sufficient cause for non-appearance, and the rules of procedure should not sacrifice substantive justice. The court set aside the ex parte decree and the proceedings, highlighting the need for a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and the defendant's right to set aside ex parte decrees.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved an ex parte decree against the gram panchayat of a village, where the counsel's negligence led to the ex parte proceedings and decree. The gram panchayat sought to set aside the ex parte decree, citing lack of notice and negligence on the part of the counsel.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the negligence of the counsel and the lack of notice to the gram panchayat warranted setting aside the ex parte decree. It emphasized the need for a liberal interpretation of 'sufficient cause' and the defendant's right to set aside ex parte decrees.
Issues: The issues included the liability of the ex parte decree, the timeliness of the application, and the relief sought by the gram panchayat.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the negligence of the counsel, the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, and the need to prioritize substantive justice over procedural rules.
Final Decision: The court allowed the revision, setting aside the ex parte decree and the proceedings, and ordered the payment of costs.
M.L. Singhal, J. - This is revision against the order dated 16.10.1986 of District Judge, Kurukshetra whereby he had dismissed the appeal of the gram panchayat of village Sarswati Khera against Ram Kishan etc. from the order of Sub Judge First Class, Kaithal dismissing the application of the gram panchayat for the setting aside of the ex parte decree dated 2.12.1983 in civil suit No. 296 of 1983 titled Ram Kishan and others v. Gram Panchayat for permanent injunction.
2. Ram Kishan and others filed suit No. 296 of 1983 against gram panchayat of village Sarswati Khera for permanent injunction restraining it from interfering with their possession on baras in suit situated outside the abadi deh of village Sarswati Khera but inside the revenue estate of village Sarswati Khera. Ex parte stay was granted to the plaintiffs. Gram Panchayat passed resolution No. 1 dated 17.5.1983 authorising Man Singh to get the stay vacated. Man Singh engaged Shri Y.K. Mangal and Shri M.K. Mangal, Advocates who moved application for vacation of stay on 15.6.1983, the Court passed consent order ordering the maintaining of status quo with regard to possession. Case was adjourned to 8.8.1983 for written statement. On the said date written statement was not ready. Case was adjourned to 29.8.1983. Written statement was again not ready. Case was adjourned to 26.9.1983 on payment of Rs. 20/- as costs. On 26.9.1983 again, neither written statement was filed nor cost was paid. Shri M.K. Mangal, counsel for the gram panchayat made statement pleading no instructions on behalf of the gram panchayat saying that the gram panchayat had taken away the brief of the case from him. Case was adjourned to 3.11.1983 and so on. On 2.12.1983, ex parte evidence was recorded and ex parte decree was passed.
3. On 5.4.1984, an application was made for the setting aside of the ex parte decree pleading that Man Singh and requested his counsel Shri Y.K. Mangal that he should inform him whenever his personal presence was required and Shri Y.K. Mangal accepted his request and told him that whenever his personal presence was required, he would be intimated through his Clerk. It was alleged in that application that no letter was received by Man Singh either from his counsel or his clerk. It was also mentioned that one Sita Ram of their village had also instituted suit against the gram panchayat in respect of the same land in which the gram panchayat had also engaged Shri Y.K. Mangal as their counsel. Some order was passed in that suit by the Court against the Panchayat. Appeal against that order was pending in the Court of Additional District Judge, Kurukshetra in which Hem Chand Gupta was its counsel who had asked for the briefs of the lower Court and he (Man Singh), accordingly took away the briefs i.e. the brief of this case as well from Shri Y.K. Mangal, Advocate. As such Shri Y.K. Mangal could not appear in Court and the ex parte proceedings were taken and eventually, ex parte decree was passed. On 5.4.1984 when the appllicant came to Kaithal, he came to know regarding the ex parte proceedings. On inquiry made by him from Shri Amar Chand Bhalla Clerk to Shri Y.K. Mangal, Advocate, he came to know of the ex parte proceedings and as such application was within time. Ram Kishan etc. contested this application. On the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
1. Whether the impugned ex parte decree dated 2.12.1984 is liable to be set aside on the ground mentioned in Para No. 2 of the application ? OPA
2. Whether the application is within time ? OPA
3. Relief.
4. Vide order dated 14.3.1986, Sub Judge First Class, Kaithal dismissed this application and refused to set aside the ex parte decree in view of his finding that there was no sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte decree. Application was found to be time barred also.
5. Not satisfied with this order dated 14.3.1986, gram panchayat went in appeal. Vide order dated 16.10.1986, District Judge, Kurukshetra
