Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Smt. Sokkamma (since deceased, represented by her LR M. Byrappa), filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 30.11.2019 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District, in O.S. No. 131/2010. 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 30.11.2019. The suit was filed by the respondents for partition and separate possession of suit schedule properties. The petitioner, who was defendant No. 1 in the suit, had filed a written statement but thereafter failed to appear on the date of hearing, leading to the ex-parte decree. The petitioner contended that she was not served with summons and had no knowledge of the proceedings. However, the Trial Court found that the petitioner had knowledge of the suit as she had filed a written statement and had also engaged a counsel. The High Court, after hearing the parties, held that the Trial Court had correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the application. The court observed that the petitioner had failed to show sufficient cause for her non-appearance and that the Trial Court's order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity. Accordingly, the writ petition was dismissed.
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 partition suit. The Trial Court dismissed the application holding that the petitioner had knowledge of the suit and failed to appear. The High Court upheld the order, finding no error in the exercise of discretion. (Paras 1-10)
B) Civil Procedure Code - Order IX Rule 13 - Knowledge of Proceedings - The court noted that the petitioner was aware of the suit and had even filed a written statement, but subsequently failed to appear. Held that knowledge of proceedings is a relevant factor in determining sufficient cause. (Paras 5-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree on the ground that the petitioner had knowledge of the suit proceedings and failed to show sufficient cause for her non-appearance.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Trial Court refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order IX Rule 13 CPC
- Sufficient cause for setting aside ex-parte decree
- Knowledge of proceedings
- Duty of court to consider evidence
Case Details
2025 LawText (KAR) (10) 17
WP No. 12689 of 2021 (GM-CPC)
Sri Varadarajan M.S (for petitioner)
Smt. Sokkamma (since dead by her LR M. Byrappa)
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution challenging the order of the Trial Court refusing to set aside an ex-parte decree in a suit for partition and separate possession.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 30.11.2019 passed in O.S. No. 131/2010 by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Bengaluru Rural District.
Filing Reason
The petitioner claimed that she was not served with summons and had no knowledge of the suit proceedings, and therefore the ex-parte decree should be set aside.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court dismissed the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 30.11.2019, holding that the petitioner had knowledge of the suit and failed to show sufficient cause for non-appearance.
Issues
Whether the Trial Court erred in dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree.
Whether the petitioner had sufficient cause for her non-appearance in the suit.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that she was not served with summons and had no knowledge of the suit proceedings, and the ex-parte decree was passed without giving her an opportunity to be heard.
Respondents contended that the petitioner had knowledge of the suit as she had filed a written statement and had engaged a counsel, and therefore the Trial Court rightly dismissed the application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Trial Court had correctly exercised its discretion in dismissing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC as the petitioner had knowledge of the suit proceedings and failed to show sufficient cause for her non-appearance. The order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227.
Judgment Excerpts
The Trial Court has recorded a finding that the petitioner had knowledge of the suit proceedings and she had also filed the written statement. In the light of the said finding, the Trial Court has dismissed the application. The said finding is based on the material available on record.
The order impugned does not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity. The Trial Court has exercised its discretion in a proper manner.
Procedural History
The respondents filed O.S. No. 131/2010 for partition and separate possession. The petitioner, as defendant No. 1, filed a written statement but failed to appear, leading to an ex-parte decree on 30.11.2019. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, which was dismissed on 30.11.2019. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order IX Rule 13
