Case Note & Summary
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals filed by Om Prakash Ram against the State of Bihar and others, setting aside the orders of the Patna High Court that had dismissed his writ petition and review petition. The dispute originated from a title suit filed in 1970 by the predecessor-in-interest of the fifth respondent, which was dismissed. A second suit filed in 1988 was decreed ex parte in 1994 without notice to the appellant. The appellant filed a miscellaneous case to set aside the ex parte decree, which was allowed in 2003, and the suit was subsequently dismissed in 2006. Meanwhile, based on the ex parte decree, the fifth respondent obtained demarcation orders in 1998, a writ direction in 2008, and a contempt order in 2015, all without impleading the appellant. The appellant was dispossessed pursuant to these orders. The High Court dismissed the appellant's writ petition seeking recall of those orders, imposing costs, which was partly upheld in appeal. The Supreme Court held that since the ex parte decree was set aside and the suit dismissed, the entire edifice of the demarcation, writ, and contempt proceedings collapsed. The fifth respondent had suppressed the pendency of the miscellaneous case and the setting aside of the decree. Consequently, the Court quashed all orders passed in the demarcation case, writ petition, and contempt proceedings, and directed restoration of possession to the appellant in accordance with law.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ex Parte Decree - Setting Aside - Consequential Orders - Where an ex parte decree is set aside, all proceedings and orders based solely on such decree are rendered unsustainable and must be quashed - The appellant was dispossessed based on an ex parte decree that was later set aside; the demarcation, writ, and contempt orders founded on that decree were quashed - Held that the substratum of the subsequent proceedings vanished with the setting aside of the ex parte decree (Paras 5-8).
B) Civil Procedure - Suppression of Material Facts - Demarcation Proceedings - The fifth respondent suppressed the pendency of the miscellaneous case for setting aside the ex parte decree and obtained demarcation and possession orders - The court held that such suppression vitiates the orders obtained - Held that orders obtained by suppression of material facts are liable to be set aside (Paras 7-8).
C) Property Law - Restoration of Possession - Where possession is obtained pursuant to orders based on a decree that is subsequently set aside, the party dispossessed is entitled to restoration of possession - The appellant was dispossessed based on the ex parte decree; after the decree was set aside and the suit dismissed, possession must be restored - Held that possession needs to be restored in favour of the appellant (Paras 8-9).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the orders passed in demarcation, writ, and contempt proceedings based on an ex parte decree that was subsequently set aside are liable to be quashed, and whether possession must be restored to the appellant who was dispossessed pursuant to such orders.
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the orders dated 06.06.2016 and 20.11.2017 passed by the High Court, and also quashed the orders in Demarcation Case No. 49/1997, CWJC No. 3221/2003 (including the order dated 27.02.2013 in Civil Review No. 21/2001), Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 5323/2011, and CWJC No. 1806/2016. The Court directed that possession of the property be restored to the appellant in accordance with law.
Law Points
- Ex parte decree set aside
- restoration of possession
- suppression of material facts
- demarcation proceedings based on void decree
- natural justice
- notice requirement
Case Details
Civil Appeal Nos. 3936-3937 of 2019 (@ SLP (C) Nos. 9929-9930 of 2019)
N.V. Ramana, Mohan M. Shantanagoudar
The State of Bihar & Ors.
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Civil appeal against orders of the High Court dismissing writ petition and review petition seeking recall of orders passed in demarcation, writ, and contempt proceedings based on an ex parte decree that was subsequently set aside.
Remedy Sought
The appellant sought recall of the order dated 10.01.2008 in CWJC No. 3221/2003 and order dated 16.12.2015 in Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 5323/2011, and restoration of possession of the disputed property.
Filing Reason
The appellant was dispossessed based on orders passed in demarcation, writ, and contempt proceedings that were founded on an ex parte decree which was later set aside; the appellant was not made a party to those proceedings.
Previous Decisions
The ex parte decree dated 06.06.1994 in Title Suit No. 32/1993 was set aside on 21.05.2003 in Miscellaneous Case No. 6/1999; the suit was dismissed on 29.08.2006. The High Court dismissed CWJC No. 1806/2016 on 29.03.2016 with costs, which was partly modified in LPA No. 831/2016 on 06.06.2016 (costs set aside), and Civil Review No. 563/2016 was dismissed on 20.11.2017.
Issues
Whether the orders passed in Demarcation Case No. 49/1997, CWJC No. 3221/2003, and Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 5323/2011, which were based on an ex parte decree that was subsequently set aside, are liable to be quashed.
Whether the appellant is entitled to restoration of possession of the disputed property.
Submissions/Arguments
The appellant argued that the entire exercise by the fifth respondent to get the property demarcated and secure possession was based on the ex parte decree dated 06.06.1994, which was set aside on 21.05.2003, and the suit was dismissed on 29.08.2006. The fifth respondent suppressed the pendency of the miscellaneous case and the setting aside of the decree.
The fifth respondent did not implead the appellant in any of the proceedings (demarcation, writ, contempt), and the appellant had no notice of those proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi
Once an ex parte decree is set aside, all proceedings and orders that were based solely on such decree become unsustainable and must be quashed. Suppression of material facts by a party vitiates orders obtained thereby. A party dispossessed pursuant to orders based on a decree that is subsequently set aside is entitled to restoration of possession.
Judgment Excerpts
If it is so, the order passed in Demarcation Case No. 49/1997 and the subsequent orders passed in CWJC No. 3221/2003 and Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 5323/2011, which were passed based on the exparte decree in the title suit, are also liable to be set aside, and possession needs to be restored in favour of the appellant.
Therefore, the orders passed by the concerned officer in Demarcation Case No. 49/1997, the orders passed by the High Court of Judicature at Patna in CWJC No. 3221/2003, (including the order dated 27.02.2013 passed in Civil Review No. 21/2001 in CWJC No. 3221/2003), the order dated 16.12.2015 passed in Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 5323/2011 and the order dated 29.03.2016 passed in CWJC No. 1806/2016, are liable to be set aside.
Procedural History
1970: Title Suit No. 105/1970 filed by Brhamdeo Narayan (predecessor of 5th respondent) dismissed on 09.06.1971. 1988: Another suit filed by Brhamdeo Narayan, renumbered as Title Suit No. 32/1993, decreed ex parte on 06.06.1994. 21.11.1994: Appellant filed Miscellaneous Case No. 6/1999 to set aside ex parte decree, allowed on 21.05.2003. 29.08.2006: Title Suit No. 01/2003 dismissed. Meanwhile, 5th respondent obtained Demarcation Case No. 49/1997 allowed on 08.01.1998, CWJC No. 3221/2003 allowed on 10.01.2008, and Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 5323/2011 allowed on 16.12.2015. Appellant filed Civil Review No. 21/2011 dismissed. Appellant filed CWJC No. 1806/2016 dismissed on 29.03.2016 with costs; LPA No. 831/2016 partly allowed on 06.06.2016 (costs set aside); Civil Review No. 563/2016 dismissed on 20.11.2017. Present appeals filed.
