Case Note & Summary
The dispute arose from a civil suit for possession filed by the landlord-appellant under Sections 16(1)(g) and 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999, against the tenant-respondents. Initially, the defendants failed to appear and were proceeded ex parte, but later the ex parte orders were set aside and they filed written statements. During the proceedings, the advocate for the defendants filed a pursis (Exhibit-42) stating he had no instructions from his clients and attaching a copy of a notice sent to them by RPAD. The trial court ignored this pursis, proceeded with the trial, recorded the plaintiff’s evidence, and decreed the suit on 04.03.2015. The defendants appealed under Section 34 of the 1999 Act, contending they were denied adequate opportunity to present their case because the court should have issued fresh notice to them after their advocate filed the no-instruction pursis, and that the proper procedure for withdrawal of Vakalatnama was not followed. The District Judge dismissed the appeal on 16.06.2021 after a detailed examination. The appellate court held that the pursis did not amount to a withdrawal of Vakalatnama and that the defendants had failed to explain whether they received the RPAD notice; their evasiveness in not making a statement about receipt disentitled them to relief. Reliance was placed on the presumption of service under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act and on precedents to emphasize that a party cannot blame the court for its own casualness. The defendants then filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court, which allowed the petition on 30.01.2023, set aside the District Judge’s order, and remanded the suit to the Small Causes Court for fresh disposal. The appellant (landlord) approached the Supreme Court. The core legal issue was whether the High Court erred in interfering with the District Judge’s well-reasoned order on the ground that the defendants were denied an opportunity of hearing. The Supreme Court, after hearing both sides, set aside the High Court’s order. It agreed with the reasoning of the District Judge that the no-instruction pursis did not constitute withdrawal of Vakalatnama, that the trial court’s procedure did not violate natural justice, and that the defendants’ evasive conduct regarding the RPAD notice and their failure to inquire after the decree debarred them from any equitable relief. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the High Court’s remand order was quashed, and the District Judge’s order dismissing the defendants’ appeal was restored, thereby upholding the eviction decree.
Headnote
A) Practice and Procedure – Advocate’s No-Instruction Puris – Distinction from Withdrawal of Vakalatnama – Advocates Act, 1961, Civil Manual para 588 – A mere pursis by an advocate stating ‘no instructions’ does not amount to formal withdrawal of Vakalatnama. The court is not obligated to issue fresh notice to the party unless the Vakalatnama is formally withdrawn. Held, the trial court did not err in proceeding after such pursis, and the defendant cannot claim violation of natural justice when they failed to respond to the advocate’s RPAD notice and remained evasive about its receipt (Paras 13-19, 24-25). B) Evidence – Presumption of Service of Notice – Section 27, General Clauses Act, 1897; Section 114, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – When a notice is sent by Registered Post Acknowledgment Due, there is a presumption of due service. The party’s failure to state whether such notice was received or not, and their evasiveness, disentitles them from claiming lack of opportunity. Held, the appellate court was justified in drawing an adverse inference against the defendants who avoided making a statement regarding receipt (Paras 15, 19, 20, 22, 24). C) Natural Justice – Right to be Heard – Duty of Court upon Advocate’s Retirement – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – The court’s duty to issue notice arises only if the counsel formally retires from the case. Where the advocate merely informed the court of no instructions and did not withdraw, the party is not automatically entitled to a de novo hearing. Therefore, the party must act with due diligence. Held, the defendants’ casual and evasive approach in not responding to the advocate’s notice and not making inquiries after the suit decree disentitled them to the extraordinary remedy of setting aside the decree (Paras 18, 21, 23-24). D) Appeal – Scope of Interference under Article 227 – High Court’s Supervisory Jurisdiction – Constitution of India, Article 227 – The High Court should not interfere with a well-reasoned order of the District Judge unless there is a patent error of law or jurisdictional error. The High Court’s order remanding the suit was set aside as it failed to appreciate the detailed reasoning of the appellate court. Held, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal and restored the District Judge’s order dismissing the tenant’s appeal (Paras 7-8).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the High Court erred in interfering with the District Judge’s order and remanding the suit on the ground that the defendants were denied adequate opportunity to present their case after their advocate filed a 'no instructions' pursis without formally withdrawing Vakalatnama
Final Decision
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s order dated 30.01.2023, and restored the District Judge’s order dated 16.06.2021 which had dismissed the defendants’ appeal against the eviction decree. The Court held that the High Court erred in interfering with the well-reasoned order of the District Judge, and that the defendants’ evasiveness and failure to establish lack of opportunity disentitled them to relief.
Law Points
- A pursis stating 'no instructions' does not constitute withdrawal of Vakalatnama
- service of RPAD notice raises presumption of due service
- evasive litigant not entitled to indulgence
- High Court interference under Article 227 unwarranted when appellate order was well-reasoned
