Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were defendants in a suit for permanent injunction filed by the respondent-company, challenged the order of the trial court dated 30.11.2017 dismissing their application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex-parte decree dated 27.06.2016. The suit was filed by Prabhulingeshwar Sugars and Chemicals Limited and Siddapur Distilleries Limited against the petitioners and others, seeking a permanent injunction restraining them from interfering with the plaintiffs' possession of certain properties. The trial court decreed the suit ex-parte on 27.06.2016. The petitioners filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree, which was dismissed by the trial court on 30.11.2017. The petitioners then filed an appeal under Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC, which was also dismissed by the appellate court on 20.02.2018. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the present writ petitions under Article 227 of the Constitution. The main legal issue was whether the trial court and appellate court erred in refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree. The petitioners argued that they had sufficient cause for non-appearance, as they were not properly served and had no knowledge of the suit. The respondents contended that the summons were duly served and the petitioners had knowledge of the proceedings. The High Court, after examining the records, found that the trial court had considered the evidence and concluded that the petitioners failed to prove sufficient cause. The court held that the concurrent findings of fact were not perverse or illegal, and the discretion exercised by the trial court was judicial and not arbitrary. The High Court further held that the scope of interference under Article 227 is limited to cases of jurisdictional error or flagrant violation of law, which was not present. Accordingly, the writ petitions were dismissed, and the order refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Ex-parte Decree - Setting Aside - Order 9 Rule 13, Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC - The petitioners sought to set aside an ex-parte decree passed in a suit for permanent injunction. The trial court dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which was confirmed by the appellate court. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding lack of sufficient cause do not warrant interference under Article 227, as the discretion was exercised judicially and not perversely. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure Code - Writ Jurisdiction - Scope of Article 227 - Interference with Discretionary Orders - The High Court reiterated that the power under Article 227 is supervisory and not appellate. It can be exercised only if the subordinate court has acted without jurisdiction, in excess of jurisdiction, or in flagrant disregard of law or procedure. Mere erroneous decision on facts does not justify interference. (Paras 8-10) C) Civil Procedure Code - Sufficient Cause - Order 9 Rule 13 CPC - The petitioners claimed that they were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on the date of hearing. The trial court found that the summons were duly served and the petitioners had knowledge of the proceedings. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the petitioners failed to demonstrate any illegality or perversity in the concurrent findings. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court's refusal to set aside an ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was justified and whether the High Court should interfere with such discretionary order in writ jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed both writ petitions, upholding the orders of the trial court and appellate court refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree.
Law Points
- Order 9 Rule 13 CPC
- Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC
- Section 115 CPC
- Ex-parte decree
- Setting aside ex-parte decree
- Sufficient cause
- Discretion of trial court
- Scope of writ jurisdiction under Article 227
