Case Note & Summary
The dispute involved a suit for ejectment filed by the plaintiff against the tenant for default in rent and wrongful subletting. The defendants did not appear, leading to an ex-parte decree. The plaintiff presented one witness and some documents, but the decree was later set aside by the High Court due to insufficient evidence. The plaintiff argued that the witness was her husband and thus competent, but the High Court found the evidence inadequate. The Supreme Court held that the plaintiff could not fill evidentiary gaps at the Supreme Court stage and emphasized the necessity of reliable evidence for an ex-parte decree. The Court remanded the case for retrial, allowing the plaintiff to amend her pleadings and requiring the defendants to file written statements. The Court directed that the retrial should be expedited, aiming for resolution within six months. The appeals were allowed, and the High Court's judgments were set aside (Paras 759-762).
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ex-parte Decree - Requirement of Reliable Evidence - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order IX, Rule 13 - The court cannot pass an ex-parte decree without reliable relevant evidence, even in the absence of a defence. The plaintiff's evidence was insufficient to support the decree, justifying the High Court's scrutiny and decision to set it aside. Held that retrial was necessary to ensure justice (Paras 759-761).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the ex-parte decree can be upheld in the absence of reliable evidence.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's judgments and remanded the suit for retrial, allowing the plaintiff to amend her pleadings and requiring the defendants to file written statements. The Court directed that the retrial should be expedited, aiming for resolution within six months.
Law Points
- Ex-parte decree
- reliable evidence
- retrial
- affidavits as evidence
- filling lacuna
