AI Overview...
Ex Parte vs No Say Order: Understanding the Key Differences in Civil Proceedings
In civil litigation in India, courts often issue orders when one party fails to appear or respond. Two common terms that frequently confuse litigants are ex parte orders and no say orders. If you've ever wondered about the difference between ex parte and no say order, this post breaks it down clearly, drawing from judicial precedents and procedural rules under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC).
These orders ensure proceedings move forward but protect parties' rights to a fair hearing. Misunderstanding them can lead to unintended consequences, like default decrees. We'll explore definitions, applications, distinctions, and remedies, using insights from key cases. Note: This is general information based on legal precedents and not specific legal advice. Consult a lawyer for your case. Legal outcomes vary by facts and jurisdiction.
What is an Ex Parte Order?
An ex parte order is passed by a court when one party (usually the defendant) is absent from proceedings, despite proper service of summons or notice. The term ex parte means without the other party.
- When it applies: Under Order IX Rule 6 CPC, if the defendant fails to appear after summons service, the court may proceed ex parte. This could lead to an ex parte decree under Order VIII Rule 10 if no written statement is filed Samsher Singh: Ishwar Chand Agarwal VS State Of Punjab - 1974 Supreme(SC) 257.
- Nature: It's a substantive order or decree, like a judgment in favor of the plaintiff. For instance, in suits for recovery or specific performance, courts decree ex parte if the defendant skips hearings Ramji Lal, S/o. Shri Buddharam VS Radhey Shyam Jhunjhunuwala (Hakim), S/o. Shri Madan Lal Jhunjhunwala (Hakim) - 2023 Supreme(Raj) 706.
- Example from case law: In a suit decreed ex parte, the court noted proper service, and the defendant later sought setting aside under Order IX Rule 13, claiming delayed knowledge Santosh S/o Radheshyam VS Ashok S/o Judawan Yadav - 2023 Supreme(Chh) 292.
Ex parte proceedings continue without the absent party's input, but courts must record reasons. It's not punitive but ensures justice isn't stalled indefinitely.
Key Features of Ex Parte Orders
- Service prerequisite: Summons must be served; absence must be unexplained The Tahsildar vs P. Ganesan - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75191.
- Consequences: Can result in decrees executable like regular ones, e.g., possession or money recovery Gajanan Chintaman Gujar VS Aparna Shankar Gujar - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 1307.
- Remedy: Set aside under Order IX Rule 13 CPC upon showing sufficient cause for non-appearance, like improper service or genuine reasons Mootha Ramakoti VS Theatare Swapna Rep. by its Managing Partner - 2024 Supreme(AP) 1268.
What is a No Say Order?
A no say order (also called no objection or heard and no say) arises when a party fails to file a reply, written statement, or appear on a specific date, prompting the court to note no say and proceed. It's often a precursor to ex parte proceedings.
- When it applies: Typically under Order VIII Rule 1 CPC (filing written statement within 30 days, extendable) or during hearings. If no response, court records no say and may direct the suit to proceed ex parte VIJAYKUMAR WAMAN LOBHE AND ANOTHER vs OMPRAKASH VYANKATRAO LOBHE AND OTHERS.
- Nature: Procedural, not a final decree. It's an interim note indicating the party's silence, allowing evidence recording without their participation SUDAM LAXMAN PRADHAN vs DNYANESHWAR VITTHAL BHOSLE AND OTHERS.
- Example: In election petitions or civil suits, courts pass proceed ex parte after a no say note when defendants don't contest WAMAN ABAJI LOBHE AND ANOTHER vs OMPRAKASH VYANKATRAO LOBHE AND OTHERS.
Unlike ex parte decrees, a no say order doesn't conclude the suit but signals default in response.
Key Features of No Say Orders
- No strict service proof needed initially: Often follows non-filing of pleadings Shailaja A. Sawant (Dr. ) & others VS Sayajirao Ganpatrao Patil & others - 2003 Supreme(Bom) 1429.
- Consequences: Leads to ex parte evidence and potential decree, but revocable by showing cause.
- Remedy: Set aside via applications under Order IX Rule 7 or Section 151 CPC for sufficient cause, liberally construed for justice Md. Suneer VS Ramanjaneyulu - 2023 Supreme(AP) 853.
Key Differences Between Ex Parte and No Say Order
While both stem from party default, they differ in scope, stage, and impact. Here's a breakdown:
| Aspect | Ex Parte Order | No Say Order |
|---------------------|-----------------------------------------|----------------------------------------|
| Definition | Order/decree without absent party Madhu Limaye VS State Of Maharashtra - 1977 Supreme(SC) 318. | Note of no response/objection SUDAM LAXMAN PRADHAN vs DNYANESHWAR VITTHAL BHOSLE AND OTHERS. |
| Stage | After non-appearance post-summons (Order IX Rule 6). | Early stage, e.g., no written statement (Order VIII Rule 10). |
| Nature | Substantive (can be decree) Ramesh Mohanlal Ahuja VS Vidya Mahadev Chougule - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 1506. | Procedural/interim MANAGING PARTNER, PRIME SANITARIES VS PATHUMMA W/O LATE BAKKAR - 2024 Supreme(Ker) 1096. |
| Finality | Can be executable decree Mootha Ramakoti VS Theatare Swapna Rep. by its Managing Partner - 2024 Supreme(AP) 1268. | Precursor; doesn't end suit. |
| Setting Aside | Order IX Rule 13; prove sufficient cause Walltracts India Pvt. Ltd. VS Somfy India Pvt. Ltd. - 2023 Supreme(Del) 1424. | Order IX Rule 7 or inherent powers; liberal approach ROSHITH RAMAKRISHNAN vs SIVA LAKSHMI. M.U. - 2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 906. |
| Prejudice Test | Strict; show non-service or valid reason The Tahsildar vs P. Ganesan - 2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75191. | Focus on merits; delay condonable if justified Ramji Lal, S/o. Shri Buddharam VS Radhey Shyam Jhunjhunuwala (Hakim), S/o. Shri Madan Lal Jhunjhunwala (Hakim) - 2023 Supreme(Raj) 706. |
- Procedural vs. Substantive: Ex parte often culminates in judgment; no say is a step towards it Nitesh s/o. Suresh Jain VS Jalgaon City Municipal Corporation, Through Commissioner, Municipal Corporation - 2017 Supreme(Bom) 1707.
- Appealability: Ex parte decrees appealable under Order XLIII Rule 1(d); no say orders via revision or recall Mootha Ramakoti VS Theatare Swapna Rep. by its Managing Partner - 2024 Supreme(AP) 1268.
- Case Insight: Courts distinguish: Proceed ex parte follows no say, but setting aside ex parte requires more rigor VIJAYKUMAR WAMAN LOBHE AND ANOTHER vs OMPRAKASH VYANKATRAO LOBHE AND OTHERS Kunhayammed VS State Of Kerala - 2000 5 Supreme 181.
How Courts Handle Setting Aside These Orders
Courts prioritize natural justice. For ex parte:
- File under Order IX Rule 13 within 30 days; condone delay with sufficient cause Santosh S/o Radheshyam VS Ashok S/o Judawan Yadav - 2023 Supreme(Chh) 292.
- Proof: Affidavit on non-service or illness Gajanan Chintaman Gujar VS Aparna Shankar Gujar - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 1307.
For no say:
- Liberal under Order IX Rule 7; sufficient cause broadly interpreted (e.g., counsel's default) Md. Suneer VS Ramanjaneyulu - 2023 Supreme(AP) 853.
- Costs may be imposed as condition Gajanan Chintaman Gujar VS Aparna Shankar Gujar - 2023 Supreme(Bom) 1307.
In Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal (referenced in precedents), courts emphasized avoiding technicalities for justice Md. Suneer VS Ramanjaneyulu - 2023 Supreme(AP) 853.
Practical Implications and Precautions
- For Defendants: File written statement timely (90 days max post-2018 amendment). Monitor dates; engage reliable counsel.
- Costs and Delay: Courts impose costs for setting aside to deter negligence MANAGING PARTNER vs PATHUMMA - 2024 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 87685.
- Tribunals/Forums: Similar principles apply, e.g., Consumer Forums allow setting aside ex parte if no prejudice Ramesh Mohanlal Ahuja VS Vidya Mahadev Chougule - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 1506.
Key Takeaways
- Ex parte = Full proceeding/decree without party; harder to set aside.
- No say = Default note; easier remedy, focuses on merits.
- Always act promptly; courts favor hearings on merits over procedural defaults.
- Reference: Preventive detention cases highlight bald statements invalid without materials, akin to unsubstantiated defaults REKHA VS STATE OF T. NADU TR. SEC. TO GOVT. - 2011 Supreme(SC) 369.
Understanding these nuances prevents harsh outcomes. For tailored advice, consult a legal expert. Stay informed on CPC amendments for timely filings.
Disclaimer: This article provides general insights from case law like Madhu Limaye VS State Of Maharashtra - 1977 Supreme(SC) 318, REKHA VS STATE OF T. NADU TR. SEC. TO GOVT. - 2011 Supreme(SC) 369, Ramesh Mohanlal Ahuja VS Vidya Mahadev Chougule - 2019 Supreme(Bom) 1506, etc. Laws evolve; professional consultation essential.
Search Results for "Ex Parte vs No Say Order: Key Differences"
2011 0 Supreme(SC) 369 • India - Supreme Court
MARKANDEY KATJU, S.S.NIJJAR, GYAN SUDHA MISRA
only contains ipse dixit regarding alleged imminent possibility of accused coming out on bail and there was no reliable materials ... bail, details of such alleged similar cases must be given, otherwise bald statement of authority cannot be believed - Detention order ... Offenders, Sand Offenders, and Slum Grabbers and Video Pirates Act, 1982-Section 3-Detention-Apprehension of release on bail-Detention order ... What difference is it to the detenu whether his imprisonment is called preventive or punitive? ... Of State f....
1977 0 Supreme(SC) 318 • India - Supreme Court
D.A.DESAI, N.L.UNTWALIA, P.K.GOSWAMI
setting aside an ex parte decree in suit and restoring suit to the file of the trial Court is not a final order within the meaning ... against the appellant upon the said complaint – Held, As already mentioned, the view expressed in case may be open to debate or difference ... of Article 133 - It is to be noticed that if High Court would have refused to set aside ex decree, the proceeding for setting it ... As already mentioned, the view expressed in Mohan Lals case may be open to deba....
1986 0 Supreme(SC) 115 • India - Supreme Court
D.P.MADAN, A.P.SEN
There can thus be no doubt that the corporation is “the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution, as held in the ... In both these writ petitions rule nisi was issued and an ex parte ad interim order staying the operation of the said notice of termination ... Does this, therefore, make any difference? There is a basic fallacy vitiating the above submission. ... The difference between Part III and Part IV is that while Part III prohibits the State from doing certain t....
2014 8 Supreme 225 • India - Supreme Court
RANJAN GOGOI, ROHINTON FALI NARIMAN
Section 34 – Arbitrator applying Hudson’s formula – Division Bench setting aside award holding mechanical application ... Arbitrator correctly construing and applying this clause to claims 2, 3 and 4 and not applying it to claims 9, 10, 11 and 15 – No ... Act, 1996 – Section 34 – None of the 15 claims overlapping – All contained under separate heads – No ... Ex Parte Shaw., 1952 1 All ER 122 at page 130: ... “Leaving now the statutory tribunals, I turn to the awards ... Non-....
1988 0 Supreme(SC) 337 • India - Supreme Court
B.C.RAY, G.L.OZA, M.N.VENKATACHALIAH, RANGANATH MISRA, S.NATARAJAN, S.RANGANATHAN, SABYASACHI MUKHARJEE
There is a vital qualitative difference between the two subsections and that" while a case can be transferred to a Special Judge ... In this situation, it is difficult to say that the direction issued by this Court in the impugned order is based on a view which ... In the absence of any further proceeding, the direction of the Constitution Bench of 16th of February, 1984 became final and it is ... That reflects a difference in outlook normally found between personnel ....
2019 0 Supreme(Bom) 1506 • India - Bombay
S.S.SHINDE
appeal against the said ex parte order. ... It is not their case either they have moved the District Consumer Forum for setting aside the ex parte order or they have filed an ... Consumer Forum, Sangli on 06.11.2009 is ex parte and Petitioners did not get opportunity to contest the said proceedings. ... appeal against the said ex parte order. ... Hence, learned District Forum passed 'No#....
2017 0 Supreme(Bom) 1707 • India - Bombay
VIBHA KANKANWADI
Final Decision: The writ petition was allowed, and the order below Exhibits 28, 29 and 30 in Special Civil Suit No. 73 of ... The petitioner challenged this order. ... Mohindra Kumar & others and a judgment delivered in Writ Petition No. 07212 of 2011. ... It has been observed, that the opening words of Order IX Rule 7 are "Where the Court has adjourned the hearing of the suit 'ex parte ... He also pointed out that earlier when the order of '#HL_STA....
2003 0 Supreme(Bom) 1429 • India - Bombay
D.B.BHOSALE
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Order VIII, Rule 1 - provision directory in nature - courts discretion to extend time - should not ... ... Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Order VIII, Rules 9 and 10 – provisions ... However, the difference was this that in Dr. J.J. ... The only difference between the recent amendment and unamended provisions of Rule 9 is that no time limit was fixed in the old Code ... On 21-3-2002, the trial Court passed "No Say" order#HL_E....
• India - Bombay
Under the circumstances, “suit to proceed ex-parte
• India - Bombay
Under the circumstances, “suit to proceed ex-parte
2024 0 Supreme(All) 382 • India - Allahabad
SAURABH LAVANIA
But there is one difference between an order of injunction and an order of stay arising out of the fact that an injunction order is usually passed against a party while a stay order is addressed to the court. ... Under this Order, the Court can grant the interim order/injunction and the Court can also grant an ex-parte interim order/temporary injunction and an order for injunction can be discharged, varied or set a....
2025 Supreme(Online)(Mad) 75191 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. SENTHILKUMAR
The Civil Procedure Code does not say that the Court is bound to grant a decree in case the defendant is absent. Judgment means cognitive process of reading a decision or drawing conclusion. ... In the interests of justice and under the peculiar circumstances of the case we set aside the order impugned and condone the delay in filing the application for setting aside ex- parte decree. ... However, the petitioners were set ex parte and the learned District Munsif has passed the ex parte judgment, dated 2....
2023 0 Supreme(Bom) 1307 • India - Bombay
SANDEEP V. MARNE
The motion was filed by the Appellant, who was defendant No.1 in the suit, for setting aside ex parte order dated 16 November 2016 and ex parte decree dated 16 December 2017 passed by the City Civil Court in S. C. ... I further say that my late brother Mr. ... That under the provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, ex parte decree can be set aside only if it is proved that summons was not served on defendant. ... Setting aside decree ex parte aga....
2026 Supreme(Online)(Ker) 906 • India - IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
DEVAN RAMACHANDRAN, M.B. SNEHALATHA, JJ
Therefore, this is a case where there is an ex parte decree was followed by an order setting aside the same - also issued ex parte. The learned Court has only corrected the error by Ext.P11 and we cannot find fault with it. ... By a quirk of destiny, that application has been allowed ex parte as seen above; against which, the respondent filed her application, culminating in Ext.P11 order. ... The learned Court, thereupon, proceeded to consider IA 5/2025 and since there was no appearance for the responde....
2023 0 Supreme(AP) 853 • India - Andhra Pradesh
D. V. S. S. SOMAYAJULU, V. SRINIVAS
But, be it noted, the Court is not directed to make an ex-parte order. ... The trial Court was pleased to pass an order setting him ex-parte as no representation in the matter. ... Of course the fact that it is proceeding ex-parte will be recorded in the minutes of its proceedings but that is merely a statement of the fact and is not an order made against the defendant in the sense of an ex-parte decree or other ex-parte order which....
Filter by Legal Phrase
