Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.P. Misra and N. Santosh Hegde, JJ.
Praveen Kumar - Appellants
Versus
Suresh Chand - Respondent
Civil Appeal No. 4567 of 2000.
Decided On : 16 August, 2000
Order 9 Rule 13 - Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree - The court considered the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte decree. The trial Court relied on the opinion of the handwriting expert to conclude that the appellants had not been duly served, and allowed the application. However, the High Court set aside the trial Court's findings, leading to the appeal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte decree, claiming that the process was not duly served on them and the process-server played fraud and forged their signatures. The trial Court allowed the application based on the opinion of the handwriting expert. The High Court set aside the trial Court's findings, leading to the appeal.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court erred in interfering with the trial Court's finding on the service of the appellants. The trial Court did not commit any jurisdictional error, and the High Court should not have interfered with the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order of the High Court was set aside, restoring that of the trial Court.
Issues: The main issue was whether there was proper service on the appellants, leading to the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The High Court should not interfere with the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court unless the trial Court committed a jurisdictional error or its decision would result in manifest injustice. The trial Court's reliance on the opinion of the handwriting expert was considered valid, and the High Court's interference was deemed unwarranted.
Final Decision: The present appeal was allowed, the impugned order of the High Court was set aside, and that of the trial Court was restored. The appeal was remanded back to the trial Court to proceed with the suit expeditiously.
A.P. Misra, J. - Leave granted.
2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties.
3. The appellants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code for setting aside the ex parte decree. The case of the appellants is that the process was not duly served on them and the process- server played fraud and forged the signatures of the appellants. The trial Court permitted the signatures to be testified by the handwriting expert who gave the same opinion. The trial Court relying upon the opinion of the handwriting expert came to the conclusion that the appellants had not been duly served hence allowed the application and set aside the ex parte decree. Against that the respondent preferred a revision in the High Court. The High Court set aside the findings of the trial Court and held that the appellants have been served. This decision of the High Court is challenged before us.
4. Having heard learned Counsel for the parties, we find that on the question whether there was service on the appellants or not, the High Court fell into error. When the trial Court after taking into consideration the evidence on the record including the opinion of the handwriting expert came to the conclusion that there was no service and allowed the application, then the High Court could only under its revisional power have interfered if the trial Court committed any jurisdictional error, or its decision would have resulted in any manifest injustice. The trial Court not having committed any such error the High Court should not have interfered with the finding recorded by it. On the other hand the High Court entered into weighing the evidence and recording that the trial Court should not have found no service, only because the handwriting expert says so.
5. Hence, the High Court should not have interfered with the finding of fact recorded by the trial Court.
6. According, the present appeal is allowed and the impugned order dated 3.11.1998 of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial Court restored. The appeal is remanded back to the trial Court to proceed with the suit expeditiously as the matter is old.
Appeal allowed.
AI
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
