Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Institute for Manpower Planning and Career Training (IMPACT), an educational society, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, in O.S. No. 123/2020. The trial court had dismissed the petitioner's application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree dated 15.03.2021. The suit was filed by respondent No.1 (Sri Motappa) and others for a permanent injunction against the petitioner and other defendants. The petitioner contended that the summons were not served and that the suit was filed collusively without proper notice. The trial court, after hearing both sides, held that the petitioner had knowledge of the suit and failed to appear, thus no sufficient cause was shown. The High Court, upon examining the records and submissions, found that the trial court's order was based on a proper appreciation of facts and law. The court noted that the petitioner had not demonstrated any illegality or perversity in the impugned order warranting interference under writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed, upholding the trial court's refusal to set aside the ex-parte decree.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Order IX Rule 13 - Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decree - Sufficient Cause - The petitioner sought to set aside an ex-parte decree in a suit for permanent injunction, claiming that summons were not served and that the suit was filed collusively. The trial court dismissed the application, finding that the petitioner had knowledge of the suit and failed to appear. The High Court upheld the order, holding that the petitioner did not demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance and that the trial court's discretion was not perverse or arbitrary. (Paras 1-10) B) Constitutional Law - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ Jurisdiction - Interference with Discretionary Orders - The High Court, in exercise of its supervisory jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, declined to interfere with the trial court's order refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree, as the order was neither illegal nor suffered from any jurisdictional error. The court reiterated that the writ court does not act as an appellate authority over discretionary orders unless they are manifestly unjust. (Paras 11-15)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree when the petitioner claimed lack of knowledge of the suit proceedings.
Final Decision
The writ petition is dismissed. The impugned order dated 25.09.2025 passed by the Senior Civil Judge and JMFC, Devanahalli, in O.S. No. 123/2020 is upheld.
Law Points
- Order IX Rule 13 CPC
- Sufficient cause for non-appearance
- Scope of writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227
- Interference with discretionary orders
