Kanchhu v. Prakash Chand

,

Judgment: https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/unyp/
Citations: 2025 INSC 542
Court: Supreme Court of India – Civil Appellate Jurisdiction
Bench: *Dipankar Datta, J. and Manmohan, J.
Case Number: Civil Appeal No. 5319 of 2025; April 22, 2025
Case: Kanchhu vs. Prakash Chand & Ors.

Civil Procedure – Order IX Rule 13, CPC – Setting aside ex-parte decree – Sufficient cause for non-appearance – High Court’s jurisdiction under Article 227 – Scope of interference.

Respondents failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for absence during trial – Repeated adjournments sought before ex-parte order – Medical certificate relied upon not substantiated – High Court’s order allowing writ petition and setting aside ex-parte decree held flawed – Failure to consider trial and appellate court findings – Misapplication of law regarding consideration of written statement in ex-parte proceedings – Impugned order set aside, ex-parte decree restored – Vigilance and diligence emphasized in pursuing legal actions.

Facts

  • Background: The appellant, Kanchhu, filed a civil suit (Suit No. 105/1987) on May 22, 1987, in the Munsif Court, Khurja, seeking cancellation of a sale deed dated September 5, 1984, alleging fraud. The respondents, defendants and claimed brothers of the appellant, contested the suit, filing a written statement on September 18, 1987, denying the allegations and asserting ill-motive by the appellant.
  • Trial Court Proceedings: Issues were framed on January 18, 1988. The respondents sought multiple adjournments and failed to participate, leading to an ex-parte order on April 24, 1991. The appellant’s evidence was recorded on July 2, 1991, without cross-examination, and the suit was decreed ex-parte on August 17, 1991.
  • Respondents’ Actions: The respondents filed an application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC, with a condonation of delay application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, claiming respondent no. 1’s illness from August 15 to November 30, 1991, prevented participation. The trial court rejected the delay condonation on November 3, 1997, but a revision allowed it on April 19, 1999. The Order IX Rule 13 application was dismissed on July 23, 2002, and the dismissal was upheld by the appellate court on October 8, 2002.
  • High Court Proceedings: The respondents challenged the appellate order via a writ petition under Article 227, which was dismissed as infructuous on December 1, 2011. Over six years later, on June 5, 2018, they sought recall, citing their lawyer’s failure to inform them of the dismissal. The High Court, on May 1, 2024, condoned the delay, recalled the 2011 order, allowed amendments, and set aside the ex-parte decree, directing a fresh trial.
  • Appeal to Supreme Court: The appellant challenged the High Court’s order, arguing it applied incorrect legal tests and ignored prior court findings.

Issue

Was the High Court justified in allowing the respondents’ writ petition, condoning the delay, recalling the dismissal, and setting aside the ex-parte decree?

Holding

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order dated May 1, 2024, and upheld the appellate court’s order dated October 8, 2002, dismissing the writ petition and restoring the ex-parte decree.

Reasoning

  • High Court’s Errors: The High Court failed to examine whether the respondents showed sufficient cause for their absence during the trial, as required under Order IX Rule 13, CPC. It did not review the trial and appellate courts’ findings, which rejected the respondents’ illness claim due to lack of evidence and their prior adjournments.
  • Insufficient Cause: The respondents’ claim of respondent no. 1’s illness from August 15, 1991, was unsupported, as they were absent from April 24, 1991, and sought adjournments earlier. Neither respondent no. 1 nor the certifying doctor testified, and the appellant’s objection that respondent no. 1 was seen healthy was unrefuted.
  • Misapplication of Law: The High Court wrongly faulted the trial court for not considering the respondents’ written statement in the ex-parte judgment, misunderstanding the legal position. An ex-parte defendant’s rights are limited to cross-examining witnesses or raising legal issues (e.g., jurisdiction), not proving factual defenses without evidence.
  • Delay Condonation: While the Supreme Court leniently accepted the respondents’ explanation for the delayed recall application (lawyer’s failure to inform), it found the High Court’s substantive decision flawed.
  • Vigilance and Diligence: The respondents’ lack of diligence in defending the suit, evident from repeated adjournments and absence, justified upholding the ex-parte decree.
  • Article 227 Scope: The High Court exceeded its supervisory jurisdiction by acting as an appellate court, setting aside the ex-parte decree without addressing the sufficiency of cause or prior court errors.

Disposition

  • The High Court’s order was set aside.
  • The appellate court’s order (October 8, 2002) was upheld, dismissing the respondents’ application to set aside the ex-parte decree.
  • The writ petition was dismissed, and the ex-parte decree dated August 17, 1991, was restored.
  • Pending applications, if any, were closed.

Key Takeaways

  • Courts must rigorously assess “sufficient cause” under Order IX Rule 13, CPC, for setting aside ex-parte decrees, requiring substantiated explanations for non-appearance.
  • Article 227 jurisdiction is limited to supervisory review, not appellate re-adjudication.
  • An ex-parte defendant’s written statement is not automatically considered for factual defenses unless legal issues (e.g., jurisdiction) are raised or cross-examination occurs.
  • Litigants must demonstrate vigilance and diligence to avoid adverse orders.

Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs)

  1. What was the primary issue before the Supreme Court in Kanchhu vs. Prakash Chand & Ors.?a) Whether the sale deed was fraudulent b) Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition and setting aside the ex-parte decree c) Whether the trial court had jurisdiction over the suit d) Whether the respondents were entitled to amend their written statement Answer: b) Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the writ petition and setting aside the ex-parte decree
  2. Under which provision did the respondents seek to set aside the ex-parte decree in the trial court?a) Order VI Rule 2, CPC b) Order IX Rule 13, CPC c) Section 34, Specific Relief Act d) Section 5, Limitation Act Answer: b) Order IX Rule 13, CPC
  3. What was the main reason the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated May 1, 2024?a) The High Court lacked jurisdiction under Article 227 b) The respondents failed to show sufficient cause for their absence during the trial c) The trial court’s ex-parte decree was based on fraud d) The appellate court’s order was not challenged within the limitation period Answer: b) The respondents failed to show sufficient cause for their absence during the trial
  4. What limitation did the Supreme Court highlight regarding an ex-parte defendant’s rights in a civil suit?a) They cannot file a written statement b) They are limited to cross-examining plaintiff’s witnesses or raising legal issues c) They can only appeal the ex-parte decree d) RailwaysThey cannot challenge the trial court’s jurisdiction Answer: b) They are limited to cross-examining plaintiff’s witnesses or raising legal issues
  5. What was the Supreme Court’s stance on the respondents’ claim that their lawyer failed to inform them of the writ petition’s dismissal?a) It rejected the claim outright b) It accepted the claim leniently but found the High Court’s substantive decision flawed c) It directed an inquiry into the lawyer’s conduct d) It held the claim irrelevant to the case Answer: b) It accepted the claim leniently but found the High Court’s substantive decision flawed

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

  1. What was the dispute in Kanchhu vs. Prakash Chand & Ors.?The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by the appellant, Kanchhu, in 1987 to cancel a sale deed dated September 5, 1984, alleging fraud. The respondents, claimed brothers of the appellant, contested the suit but were set ex-parte due to non-participation, leading to an ex-parte decree on August 17, 1991. The case escalated through various challenges, culminating in a Supreme Court appeal against a High Court order setting aside the ex-parte decree.
  2. Why was the ex-parte decree passed against the respondents?The respondents, after filing their written statement, sought multiple adjournments and failed to participate in the trial. On April 24, 1991, the trial court set them ex-parte. The appellant’s evidence was recorded without cross-examination, and the suit was decreed ex-parte on August 17, 1991.
  3. What was the High Court’s reasoning for setting aside the ex-parte decree?The High Court, in its May 1, 2024 order, held that the trial court erred by not considering the respondents’ written statement while passing the ex-parte decree. It allowed the writ petition, condoned a delay in seeking recall of a prior dismissal, and directed a fresh trial, citing the need for proper adjudication of the dispute.
  4. Why did the Supreme Court overturn the High Court’s decision?The Supreme Court found the High Court’s order flawed because:
    • It failed to assess whether the respondents showed sufficient cause for their absence during the trial, as required under Order IX Rule 13, CPC.
    • The respondents’ claim of illness was unsubstantiated and did not explain their absence from April 24, 1991, onwards.
    • The High Court misapplied the law by expecting the trial court to consider the written statement’s factual defenses in ex-parte proceedings.
    • It exceeded its Article 227 jurisdiction by acting as an appellate court rather than reviewing procedural errors.
  5. What did the Supreme Court clarify about the rights of an ex-parte defendant?The Supreme Court clarified that an ex-parte defendant’s rights are curtailed. They cannot lead evidence to prove factual defenses in their written statement but are limited to cross-examining the plaintiff’s witnesses or raising legal issues (e.g., jurisdiction or limitation). The trial court is not obligated to consider the written statement’s factual assertions unless legal issues arise.
  6. What lesson did the Supreme Court emphasize for litigants?The Court emphasized that vigilance and diligence are essential in pursuing or defending legal actions. The respondents’ repeated adjournments and failure to participate demonstrated a lack of diligence, justifying the upholding of the ex-parte decree.
  7. What was the final outcome of the case?The Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order dated May 1, 2024, upheld the appellate court’s order dated October 8, 2002, and restored the ex-parte decree dated August 17, 1991. The respondents’ writ petition was dismissed, concluding the dispute in favor of the appellant.
, , , , , ,