Supreme Court Allows State Appeal in Civil Procedure Matter Over Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree. Government's Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Decree Was Filed Within Three Days of Knowledge; No Delay Found Under Section 80 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

In Favour of Accused
  • 7
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

This case arose from a civil suit in which the Government was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was granted. The appellant, the Commissioner, Religious & Charitable Endowments, Bangalore, represented the State. The respondent, Kasliyappa Gurukula Sri Vidya Shala, was served but did not appear before the Supreme Court. The State filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree on 17-02-1984, but the trial court dismissed it on the ground that the delay was not properly explained. The High Court also dismissed the appeal. The central question before the Supreme Court was whether the State had adequately explained the delay in filing the application within 30 days from the date of knowledge. The Court noted that no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was issued. The office of the Government was informed on 15-02-1984, and the application was filed within three days thereafter. Therefore, the Government was deemed to have notice of the ex parte decree from 15-02-1984, and there was no delay. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and imposed no costs. The decision effectively reversed the lower courts' dismissal of the State's application to set aside the ex parte decree.

Headnote

A) Civil Procedure - Ex Parte Decree Setting Aside - Condonation of Delay and Limitation - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Section 80 - The State filed an application to set aside an ex parte decree on 17-02-1984, which was dismissed by the trial court for insufficient explanation of delay and the High Court dismissed the appeal. The Supreme Court held that since no notice under Section 80 CPC was issued and the Government office was informed of the ex parte decree on 15-02-1984, the Government was deemed to have notice from that date; filing the application within three days thereafter meant there was no delay, and the appeal was allowed. (Para 1)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the State properly explained the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree within 30 days from the date of knowledge, particularly in the absence of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The appeal was allowed and no costs were awarded. The Supreme Court held that the Government was deemed to have notice of the ex parte decree from 15-02-1984, and the application filed on 17-02-1984 was within three days, hence there was no delay.

Law Points

  • When no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure
  • 1908 is issued
  • the Government is deemed to have notice of an ex parte decree from the date its office is informed
  • filing an application to set aside the ex parte decree within three days thereafter constitutes no delay.
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

1995 LawText (SC) (09) 15

1995-09-01

Ramaswamy, K., Hansaria B.L.

1995 SCC (6) 481, JT 1995 (6) 516, 1995 SCALE (5) 263

The Commissioner, Religious & Charitable Endowments, Bangalore

Kasliyappa Gurukula Sri Vidya Shala

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Civil suit leading to an ex parte decree and subsequent application by the State to set aside the ex parte decree.

Remedy Sought

The State (appellant) sought setting aside of the ex parte decree by filing an application, and appealed against the dismissal of that application.

Filing Reason

The Government was set ex parte in the suit and an ex parte decree was passed, prompting the State to seek its setting aside.

Previous Decisions

The trial court dismissed the application to set aside the ex parte decree for insufficient explanation of delay; the High Court dismissed the State's appeal.

Issues

Whether the State properly explained the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree within 30 days from the date of knowledge, especially in absence of notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Submissions/Arguments

The appellant State contended that the application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed within three days of knowledge and therefore no delay occurred. The respondent, though served, did not appear to contest the appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

When no notice under Section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is issued, the Government is deemed to have notice of an ex parte decree from the date its office is informed. If the application to set aside the ex parte decree is filed within three days of that date, there is no delay and the application should be considered on merits.

Judgment Excerpts

No notice required under s.80 CPC was issued. In view of the fact that the office of the Government was informed on February 15, 1984, the Government must be deemed to have had notice of ex-parte decree from that date and within three days thereafter the application was filed. Therefore, there was no delay. The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs.

Procedural History

A civil suit was filed in which the Government was set ex parte and an ex parte decree was granted. The State filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree on 17-02-1984. The trial court dismissed the application on the ground that the delay was not properly explained. The High Court dismissed the State's appeal. The Supreme Court granted leave and heard the appeal; the respondent was served but did not appear. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and held there was no delay.

Acts & Sections

  • Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Section 80
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Landlord's Revision Petition in Rent Control Eviction Case — Bonafide Requirement Not Proven. Landlord failed to establish that the schedule property was reasonably and bonafidely required for his own use and occup...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Upholds School Tribunal's Compensation Award for Illegal Termination of Teachers Under MEPS Act. Termination Without Prior Approval of Education Officer Held Illegal, but Back Wages Limited to One Year's Salary as Reinstatement Not ...