Back
2005(3) JLJ 303
(SUPREME COURT)
N. Santosh Hegde, B.P. Singh and S.B. Sinha, JJ.
Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar and another
Civil Appeal No. 8246 of 2004 : against the judgment and decree of M.P. High Court, passed in First Appeal No. 109 of 1986;
Decided on 17.12.2004.
The remedies available to a defendant in the event of an ex parte decree being passed against him in terms of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) and the extent and limitation thereof is in question. [Para 2
Held: When an ex parte decree is passed, the defendant (apart from filing a review petition and a suit for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground of fraud) has two clear options, one, to file an appeal and another to file an application for setting aside the order in terms of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. He can take recourse to both the proceedings simultaneously but in the event the appeal is dismissed, as a result whereof the ex parte decree passed by the trial Court merges with the order passed by the appellate Court, having regard to Explanation appended to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 would not be maintainable. However, Explanation I appended to the said provision does not suggest that the converse is also true. [Para 26
(2) Civil P.C., 1908--O.9 R.7--maintainability of the application under--order passed posting suit for ex parte hearing--only in the event of suit not being heard, it allows defendant to be heard in answer to the suit--when hearing is complete and suit is posted for pronouncing judgment, application is not maintainable. AIR 1964 SC 993, (2002) 5 SCC 30 and (2003) 7 SCC 350 relied on. [Para 16
(3) Civil P.C., 1908--Ss. 96 and 115, O. 43 R.1(d), O. 13 Rr. 7 and 13--one of the defendants not proceeded ex-parte against-joining with other defendant to get the ex-parte decree set aside--also filing appeal against rejection thereof--even revision petition before High Court and Special Leave Petition before Supreme Court filed-contention not raised by such defendant in any of the above proceedings--cannot be allowed to be raised in High Court yet again. [Para 17
(4) Civil P.C., 1908--S. 11--principles of res judicata--can be invoked not only in separate subsequent proceedings--they also get attracted in subsequent stage of same proceedings. AIR 1960 SC 941, (1987) 1 SCC 727, (1999) 5 SCC 590 and (1976) 4 SCC 66 relied on. [Paras 18 & 19
(5) Judgment--order--pronounced by competent Court--should be final unless modified or reversed by appellate authorities--no one should be made to face the same kind of litigation twice over. (1999) 5 SCC 590 relied on. . [Para 21
(6) Res judicata--plea of--though technical is based on public policy--to put an end to litigation. (1999) 5 SCC 590 relied on. [Para 22
(7) Civil P.C., 1908--S.11--Evidence Act, 1872--S. 115--distinction between ‘res judicata‘ and ‘issue estoppel‘-d`res judicata debars the Court from determining the lis if it has attained finality between parties--doctrine of ‘issue estoppel‘ is invoked against the party--doctrine of ‘res judicata‘ creates estoppel by accord. (1964) 1 All ER 341 relied on. [Para 30
(8) Evidence Act, 1872--S. 115-‘cause of action estoppel‘-d`rises where identical issues are raised in two proceedings--latter proceedings shall be dealt with similarly as previous proceedings--in such event bar is absolute in relation to all points decided. (1996) 2 An ER 748 and (1996) 1 All ER 973 relied on. [Para 32
(9) Civil P.C., 1908--S. 96 and 96(2)-d`right to appeal-is a statutory right--cannot be curtailed nor any embargo be fixed thereon unless statute provides. AIR 1920 Mad. 962, AIR 1975 AP 366, AIR 1987 Born. 87 and AIR 2001 Ker. 398 distinguished. (2004) 5 SCC 385 and (2004) 3 SCC 734 relied on. [Para 36
(10) Civil P.C., 1908--O. 9 R. 13, O. 43 R. 1 and S. 96--application under O. 9 R. 13 dismissed--defendant can avail remedy of appeal under O. 43 R. 1--if such appeal is dismissed appellant cannot raise same contention in first appeal. [Para 37
(11) Civil P.C., 1908--O.9 R.13 Expl.--explanation appended--shall receive a strict construction. (1982) 2 SCC 596, (2002) 5 SCC 161 and (2005) 1 SCC 436 relied on. [Para 38
¼1½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &/kkjk 96¼2½] vk- 9 fu-13 Li"Vhdj.k rFkk vk- 47 fu-1&,di{kh; fMØh&çfroknh dks miyC/k fodYiA
çfroknh ds fo#) ,di{kh; fMØh ikfjr gks tkus dh n‘kk esa flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk ¼lafgrk½ ds vkns‘k 9 fu;e 13 ds fuca/kuksa esa mls miyC/k mipkj vkSj mudk foLrkj rFkk e;kZnk gekjs le{k ç‘uxr gSA ¼iSjk 2½
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % tc ,di{kh; fMØh ikfjr gks tkrh gS rc çfroknh dks ¼iqufoZyksdu vthZ vkSj diV ds vk/kkj ij ,di{kh; fMØh vikLr fd, tkus ds fy, okn Qkby djus ds vfrfjDr½ nks fodYi gksrs gSa] ,d] vihy Qkby djus dk vkSj nwljk] lafgrk ds vkns‘k 9 fu;e 13 ds fuca/kuksa esa vkns‘k vikLr fd, tkus ds fy, vkosnuA og nksuksa dk;Zokfg;ksa dk vkJ; lkFk&lkFk ys ldrk gSa fdarq vihy [kkfjt gks tkus dh ifjfLFkfr esa] ftlds ifj.kkeLo:i fopkj.k U;k;ky; }kjk ikfjr ,di{kh; fMØh dk vihy U;k;ky; ds vkns‘k esa foy; gks tkrk gS] lafgrk ds vkns‘k 9 fu;e 13 ls layXu Li"Vhdj.k /;ku esa j[krs gq,] vkns‘k 9 fu;e 13 ds v/khu pykus ;ksX; ugha gksxkA rFkkfi] mDr mica/k ds Li"Vhdj.k 1 }kjk ;g O;aftr ugha gksrk fd bldk myVk Hkh lgh gSA ¼iSjk 26½
¼2½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908&vk-9 fu-7&blds v/khu vkosnu dk pykus ;ksX; gksuk&okn ,di{kh; lquokbZ ds fy, fu;r fd, tkus dk vkns‘k ikfjr&okn ugha lqus tkus dh n‘kk esa gh okn ds mÙkj esa çfroknh dks lquuk vuqKkr&lquokbZ iw.kZ gks xbZ gks rFkk okn fu.kZ; lquk, tkus ds fy, fu;r gks rc vkosnu pykus ;ksX; ughaA , vkb vkj 1964 ,l lh 993] ¼2002½ 5 ,l lh lh 30 rFkk ¼2003½ 7 ,l lh lh 350 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 16½
¼3½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908&/kkjk 96 rFkk 115] vk-43 fu-1¼?k½] vk-13 fu-7 rFkk 13&çfrokfn;ksa esa ls ,d ds fo#) ,di{kh; dk;Zokgh ugha dh xbZ&,di{kh; fMØh vikLr djkus ds fy, vU; çfroknh ds lkFk la;ksftr&mldh [kkfjth ds fo#) vihy Hkh Qkby dh&;gk¡ rd fd mPp U;k;ky; ds le{k iqujhf{k.k ;kfpdk vkSj mPpre U;k;ky; ds le{k fo‘ks"k btktr ;kfpdk Hkh Qkby dh&miqZDr fdlh Hkh dk;Zokgh esa bl çfroknh }kjk ladFku ugha fd;k x;k&fQj iqu% mPp U;k;ky; esa vkus ij mBkus ugha fn;k tk ldrkA ¼iSjk 17½
¼4½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &/kkjk 11&iwoZ U;k; ds fl)kar&dsoy i`Fkd~ ijorhZ dk;Zokgh esa gh vkJ; ugha fy;k tk ldrk&mlh dk;Zokgh ds ijorhZ çØe esa Hkh vkÑ"V gksrs gSaA , vkb vkj 1960 ,l lh 941] ¼1987½ 1 ,l lh lh 727] ¼1999½ 5 ,l lh lh 590 rFkk ¼1976½ 4 ,l lh lh 66 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 18 ,oa 19
¼5½ fu.kZ;&vkns‘k&l{ke U;k;ky; }kjk lquk;k x;k&vihy çkf/kdkfj;ksa }kjk mikarfjr vFkok myVk ugha tk, rc vafre gksuk pkfg,&fdlh dks Hkh nks ckj ,d gh çdkj dh eqdnesckth dk lkeuk ugha djkuk pkfg,A ¼1999½ 5 ,l lh lh 590 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 21½
¼6½ iwoZ U;k;&dk vfHkokd~&rduhdh gS rFkkfi yksd uhfr ij vk/kkfjr gSa&eqdnesckth lekIr djus ds fy,A ¼1999½ 5 ,l lh lh 590 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 22½
¼7½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &/kkjk 11&lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872&/kkjk 115&^^iwoZ fu.kZ;** vkSj ^^fook|d foca/k** esa çHksn&iwoZ fu.kZ; U;k;ky; dks eqdnesa dk vo/kkj.k djus ls fooftZr djrk gS ;fn i{kdkjksa ds e/; mldks vafrerk çkIr gks xbZ gks&^fook/kd foca/k* ds fl)kar dk vkJ; i{kdkj ds fo#) fy;k tkrk gS&^iwoZ fu.kZ;* ds fl)kar ls lgefr }kjk foca/k l`"V gksrk gSA ¼1964½ 1 vky bZ vkj 341 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 30½
¼8½ lk{; vf/kfu;e] 1872& &/kkjk 115&^^okngsrqd foca/k**&mn~Hkwr gksrk gS tc nks dk;Zokfg;ksa esa vfHkUu fook|d mBk, x, gksa&i‘pkr~orhZ dk;Zokgh dk fuiVkjk iwoZrj dk;Zokgh ds leku gh fd;k tk,xk&ml n‘kk esa leLr fu.khZr ç‘uksa ds laca/k esa iw.kZ otZu gSA ¼1996½ 2 vky bZ vkj 748 rFkk ¼1996½ 2 vky bZ vkj 973 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 32½
¼9½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &/kkjk 96 rFkk 96¼2½&vihy dk vf/kdkj&dkuwuh vf/kdkj gSa&tc rd dkuwu esa micaf/kr ugha gks] u ?kVk;k tk ldrk gS u ml ij dksbZ jksd gh yxkbZ tk ldrh gSA , vkb vkj 1920 enzkl 962] , vkb vkj 1975 vka-ç- 366] , vkb vkj 1987 cacbZ 87 rFkk , vkb vkj 2001 dsjy 398 çHksfnrA ¼2004½ 5 ,l lh lh 385 rFkk ¼2004½ 3 ,l lh lh 734 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 36½
¼10½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &vk-9 fu-13] vk-43 fu-1 rFkk /kkjk 96&vk-9 fu-13 ds v/khu vkosnu [kkfjt&çfroknh vk-43 fu-1 ds v/khu vihy ds mipkj dk ykHk ys ldrk gS&og vihy [kkfjt gks tk, rc vihykFkhZ çFke vihy esa ogh ladFku ugha dj ldrkA ¼iSjk 37½
¼11½ flfoy çfØ;k lafgrk] 1908& &vk-9 fu-13 Li"Vh&layXu Li"Vhdj.k&vfrfuefu"B fuoZpu fd;k tk,xkA ¼1982½ 2 ,l lh lh 596] ¼2002½ 5 ,l lh lh 161 rFkk ¼2005½ 1 ,l lh lh 436 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 38½
Key Points: - A defendant has two clear options when an ex parte decree is passed: file an appeal and/or file an application for setting aside the order under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code (!) (!) . - If an appeal is dismissed, the ex parte decree merges with the appellate order, and a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 is no longer maintainable (!) . - Principles of res judicata apply at different stages of the same proceedings, and once an order becomes final, it is binding in subsequent stages (!) (!) .
Sinha, J. -- Leave granted.
2. The remedies available to a defendant in the event of an ex parte decree being passed against him in terms of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (the Code) and the extent and limitation thereof is in question before us in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 19,12.2002 passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in First Appeal No. 109 of 1986.
3. The fact of the matter relevant for the purpose of this appeal is as under:
One Shri N.N. Mukherjee was the owner of the premises in suit. He died leaving behind his wife Smt. Suchorita Mukherjee (original Defendant 1), son Shri P.P. Mukherjee (original plaintiff) and daughter Smt. Archana Kumar (original defendant 2). The family is said to be governed by Dayabhaga school of Hindu law. The original plaintiff filed a suit for partition in the year 1976. The original defendants filed their written statements. Respondent 2 herein, Surender Nath Kumar who is husband of Smt. Archana Kumar, respondent 1 herein also filed a written statement and counterclaim by setting up a plea of mortgage by deposit of title deeds in respect of property in suit said to have been created by his mother-in-law (original defendant 1).
4. Smt. Suchorita Mukherjee died on 15.9.1984 whereupon respondent 1 herein was transposed as defendant 1, whereas respondent 2 was transposed as defendant 2 therein. In the suit, defendant 1 did not file any document. Respondent 2 also did not file any document in support of his purported counterclaim.
5. Having regard to the rival contentions raised in the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed :
"1. (a) Whether partition of property owned by late Shri N.N. Mukherjee had taken place during his lifetime?
(b) If so, what property was available for partition?
(c) What were the shares allotted to the plaintiff and defendant 1 in the said partition ?
(d) Whether the plaintiff had separated from his father during his lifetime and was in separate possession of his share in the property?
2. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to 1/2 share and separate possession of his share in the property described in para 3 of the plaint?
3. Whether the plaintiff is entitled to claim mesne profits for the income derived by defendant 1 from the share in the property? If so, at what rate and to what sum ?
4. Whether the claim in suit is barred by limitation?
5. Whether the decision in Civil Suit No. 63-A of 1972 decided on 22.11.1975 by IInd Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur will operate as res judicata in the present case?
(a) Whether the suit is not maintainable as no relief has been sought against defendant 2 ?
(b) Whether at the request of defendant 1, defendant 3 spent Rs. 21,000 till 31.10.1974 on construction and alteration of the suit property and the interest as on 31.10.1974 came to Rs. 10,000.00?
(c) Whether in order to secure the above amount, defendant 1 deposited the title deeds of the suit property with defendant 2 and created a mortgage by deposit of title deeds in favour of defendant 3 and the suit property stands mortgaged with defendant 3 ?
(d) Whether defendant 3 further spent Rs. 9,500 in the years 1976, 1977 and 1980 and defendant 2 spent Rs. 10,500.00 ?
(e) Whether defendant 3 is entitled to get declaration shown as in paras 6(A), (B) and (C) of the written statement of defendant 3 ?
(f) Whether the mother of defendant 2 had made Will in favour of defendant 2 and thus, after the death of the mother, defendant 2 became absolute owner and the plaintiff has no right?
(g) Whether the plaintiff had already separated in the year 1951 and thus he has no right over the suit property?
6. Relief and costs?"
6. An additional issue was framed on 13.6.1985 and the case was fixed for evidence on 3.8.1985. On 3.8.1985 nobody was present on behalf of the defendant but the plaintiff's advocate was present whereupon, the case was directed to be placed after some time. At 2:35 p.m. a request was made for adjournme
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
