Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Sri. Raoji S/o. Devaji Patel, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi in O.S. No. 106/2010. 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 passed against him in a suit for specific performance of contract. The petitioner contended that he was not served with summons and that the Trial Court had not properly considered his application. The respondents, legal representatives of the original plaintiff, opposed the petition arguing that the petitioner had been duly served and had failed to appear despite notice. The High Court examined the Trial Court's order and found that the Trial Court had considered the evidence on record, including the service of summons, and had concluded that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for his non-appearance. The High Court held that the Trial Court's order was not perverse or capricious and that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of the court's own view. Consequently, the writ petition was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ex-parte Decree - Setting Aside - Order IX Rule 13 CPC - Sufficient Cause - The petitioner sought to set aside an ex-parte decree in a suit for specific performance. The Trial Court dismissed the application finding no sufficient cause for non-appearance. The High Court held that the Trial Court's order was not perverse or capricious and declined to interfere under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. (Paras 1-10)
B) Writ Jurisdiction - Scope - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - Interference with Discretionary Orders - The High Court reiterated that the supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 is limited and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of its own view unless the order is perverse or capricious. (Paras 8-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court's order refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 was perverse or capricious, warranting interference under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, holding that the Trial Court's order refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree was not perverse or capricious and that no interference was warranted under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
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
Case Details
2024 LawText (KAR) (09) 22
WP No. 108019 of 2023 (GM-CPC)
Sri. Anand R. Kolli (for petitioner), Sri. B.S. Kukanagoudar (for respondents)
Sri. Raoji S/o. Devaji Patel
Smt. K.M. Savithridevi (since dead by her LRs) and others
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order of the Trial Court refusing to set aside an ex-parte decree in a suit for specific performance.
Remedy Sought
The petitioner sought to quash the order dated 13.09.2024 passed by the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi in O.S. No. 106/2010, which dismissed his application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree.
Filing Reason
The petitioner claimed that he was not served with summons and that the Trial Court erred in dismissing his application to set aside the ex-parte decree.
Previous Decisions
The Trial Court had passed an ex-parte decree in O.S. No. 106/2010. The petitioner's application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree was dismissed by the Trial Court on 13.09.2024.
Issues
Whether the Trial Court's order refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was perverse or capricious.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court's discretionary order under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
Submissions/Arguments
The petitioner argued that he was not served with summons and that the Trial Court did not properly consider his application.
The respondents contended that the petitioner was duly served and failed to appear, and that the Trial Court's order was correct.
Ratio Decidendi
The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of the court's own view unless the order is perverse or capricious. The Trial Court's order refusing to set aside an ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, based on a finding of no sufficient cause, is not interfered with if it is a plausible view.
Judgment Excerpts
The Trial Court has considered the material on record and came to the conclusion that the petitioner has not made out a case to set aside the ex-parte decree.
The supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is limited and does not permit reappreciation of evidence or substitution of the court's own view unless the order is perverse or capricious.
Procedural History
The petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC in O.S. No. 106/2010 before the II Additional Senior Civil Judge, Hubballi to set aside an ex-parte decree. The Trial Court dismissed the application on 13.09.2024. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka, Dharwad Bench.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order IX Rule 13
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
