Aapka Consultant Judgment Series- In this series, we are providing case analysis of Landmark Judgments of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India.
Janakiramaiah Chetty v. A.K. Parthasarthi and Ors
[2003] 5 SCC 641, 2003 [3] SCR 369
JUDGES: Shivaraj V. Patil and Arijit Pasayat
Date of Decision: 03-04-2003
FACTS:-
In this case, appellant filed a suit of claiming damages against the respondent for wrongful confinement. On the day of judgement, respondent were absent and accordingly, the decree was passed against the respondent. Later, subordinate court allowed an application of the respondent, to set aside the decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code. Aggrieved by the order, appellant filed two revision petitions before the High Court and by the impugned order it dismissed the above petitions. Thereof, this appeal with the special leave is presented to the Apex Court.
ISSUE:-
Whether the decree passed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC is maintainable or not?
JUDGMENT:-
It was highlighted by the learned counsel for petitioner that the High Court ignored the provision of Order XVII Rule 2 read with the Explanation to Rule 2 of CPC. Order IX Rule 13 is applicable to a case where it has preceded ex-parte. If the Explanation is applied, then, the case can be treated to be one which has proceeded as if parties were present. But, on a plain reading of Rules 2 and 3 of Order XVII with the Explanation, all the learned Judges have clearly pointed out the essentials for the applicability of this order i.e.
- Substantial portion of the evidence of any party has been already recorded;
- Such party has failed to appear on any day; and
- The day is one to which the hearing of the suit is adjourned.
Keeping above points in mind, the Apex Court concluded that the prepositions laid in the judgment of trial court had clear imprints of ex-parte decree. Further, neither the sufficient evidences were indicated from the sides of both the parties nor the merits of the decision were mentioned. If the evidence on record is sufficient for disposal of the suit, there is no need, for adjourning the suit or deferring the decision but the court has to record its satisfaction.
Thus, decree passed under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC was held justified and resultantly, rejecting the appeal; or in alternative view, in the absence of merits on decision and sufficient evidence, preferring an appeal is unconstitutional. The Apex Court has affirmed the decree the of the trial court.
HELD:-
Thus held, the decree passed under Order XVII Rule 2 of CPC is maintainable in the absence of substantial portion of evidences of any party.
To Get Legal Opinion from Advocates/ Legal Experts, Please click here
To Get Legal Opinion from Retired Hon’ble Judges, Please click here
