Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit filed by the respondents against the appellants for damages following the murder conviction of the appellants. The appellants were sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Harpal Singh on 1.4.1985. Subsequently, on 16.8.1989, the respondents sought damages of Rs. 1,00,000 for loss of income from the deceased. The appellants engaged counsel to defend them, but on 18.11.1991, their counsel reported 'no instructions', leading to the appellants being proceeded against ex-parte. An ex-parte decree was passed on 8.2.1992. The appellants learned of this only on 6.6.1992 and promptly filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to set aside the decree. The trial court dismissed their application on 22.1.1996, and the District Judge upheld this dismissal on 18.10.1996. The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition on 13.12.1996. The Supreme Court found that the appellants were not negligent in defending the suit and that the trial court had failed to issue notice after the counsel's withdrawal. The court referenced a precedent where a similar lack of notice was deemed unjust. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the ex-parte decree, and remanded the case for further proceedings from the stage it was at when the counsel reported no instructions, with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ex-Parte Decree - Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13 - The appellants were not present when their counsel reported no instructions, and the court failed to issue notice to them. The court held that the appellants were not at fault and should not suffer due to the counsel's actions, allowing the appeal and setting aside the ex-parte decree (Paras 1-3).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellants were denied a fair opportunity to defend themselves in the civil suit due to lack of notice after their counsel reported no instructions.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the ex-parte decree and the orders of the trial court and the District Judge, and remanded the case for disposal in accordance with law from the stage it was at when the counsel reported no instructions.
Law Points
- Ex-parte decree
- Order 9 Rule 13 CPC
- negligence
- counsel's instructions
- notice requirement
