Team  SoOLEGAL

Relief provided by Supreme Court for suffering Ex-Parte Decree because of call of boycott by Bar Association

Team SoOLEGAL 15 Feb 2019 4:35pm

Relief provided by Supreme Court for suffering Ex-Parte Decree because of call of boycott by Bar Association

The Supreme Court, in a recent judgment, set aside an ex-parte decree which passed by a sub-Court in the year 2009. The decree was passed by Chidambram. The Apex Court’s order provided relied to the defendant against whom an ex parte decree was passed due to the court boycott call by Bar Association.

The suit of the defendant related to specific performance. The case was to be heard on 16.03.2009. But on that day, the Bar Association called for boycott of all the Courts. As a result of the boycott, the Court of Chidambram district was also made subject to boycott and the defendant’s advocate was disabled to appear in the Court.

Despite the circumstances, the case was tried in the Trial Court and an ex-parte decree was passed against the defendant.

An application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the passed decree was subsequently rejected by the Trial Court. The main reason for rejection was long pendency of the suit. This was upheld even by the Additional District Court and the High Court.

 

Contention of the Defendant:

His application was rejected by the Courts by looking at the past events only. When any such application is filed, the fact that is to be considered is that whether there is any sufficient cause or not for appearing in the matter at the date of hearing.

 

Contention of the Plaintiff:

The plaintiff, through his Counsel, raised objection to the contention of the defendant. The basis of his objection was malafide intention on part of the defendant that he did his best to prolong the suit on the pretext of one reason or the other.

 

The matter was to be heard by the Supreme Court Bench comprising of Justice R. Banumathi and Justice R. Subhash Reddy. The Bench observed that when (in the case ex pate proceedings were initiated against him) sufficient cause is to be determined for the defendant not appearing at the date of hearing, he can’t be penalized for his previous negligence which had been condoned earlier. The Court in this light said:

"The aforesaid view taken by this Court in the judgment referred above supports the case of the appellant. It is further brought to our notice that on the aforesaid date, i.e., 16.03.2009, on which date the suit was listed for trial, in view of the boycott of the courts by the advocates, all other cases were adjourned and only this case was proceeded and ex-parte decree was passed."


Tagged: supremecourt   chidambram   barassociation   exparte  
Did you find this write up useful? YES 0 NO 0
User Comments
Digital Payment Systemview all

Active Members

Have you activated yours ?

New Members view all
×

C2RMTo Know More

Something Awesome Is In The Work

0

DAYS

0

HOURS

0

MINUTES

0

SECONDS

Sign-up and we will notify you of our launch.
We’ll also give some discount for your effort :)

* We won’t use your email for spam, just to notify you of our launch.