9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Appellants filed a suit for damages against the respondents. 2. Appellants were proceeded ex-parte in the trial court. 3. Appellants filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte judgment. 4. Appellants' appeal was dismissed by the District Judge and the High Court. 5. Appeal before the Supreme Court for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Analysis: 1. The appellants filed a suit against the respondents claiming damages for deprivation of income due to the murder of Harpal Singh. The trial court framed several issues based on the pleadings of both parties. However, the appellants' counsel pleaded "no instructions" without informing the appellants, leading to the appellants being proceeded ex-parte. 2. The appellants, upon learning about the ex-parte decree, promptly engaged another counsel and filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. to set aside the ex-parte judgment. The trial court, the District Judge, and the High Court all dismissed their appeals, leading to the appeal before the Supreme Court. 3. The Supreme Court noted that the appellants had engaged counsel to defend them in the civil suit and were not negligent in following the proceedings. The Court highlighted that the appellants were not informed by their counsel about reporting "no instructions" and only found out about the ex-parte decree later. Citing a previous judgment, the Court emphasized the importance of ensuring parties are not at fault when legal representatives withdraw from a case. 4. Consequently, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the trial court's order and the ex-parte decree. The District Judge and High Court's decisions were also overturned. The case was remanded to the trial court to proceed from the stage it was on before the ex-parte decree. The Court ruled in favor of the appellants, emphasizing the need for justice and fairness in legal proceedings.
|
