9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Setting aside of ex-parte order and imposition of terms by trial court. 2. Appeal against the condition imposed by the trial court. 3. High Court's opinion on the condition imposed by the trial court. 4. Special leave petition seeking appeal. 5. Modification of the High Court's order and subsequent directions. Analysis: 1. The respondents held premises on tenancy from the appellants. The appellants filed a suit for recovery of rent and ejectment due to arrears. The trial court allowed the defendants' application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC, setting aside the ex-parte order but imposed terms for depositing monthly lease amount. The defendants appealed in the High Court, challenging the onerous condition. 2. The High Court found the condition imposed by the trial court too burdensome and directed its removal while instructing the trial court to expedite the suit's disposal. The appellants filed a special leave petition seeking appeal against the High Court's decision. 3. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision but made modifications. It clarified that under Order 9 Rule 7, the court can impose costs and terms while setting aside an ex-parte order. The purpose is to ensure fair proceedings without prejudging the case. The court cannot impose conditions that worsen the defendant's position or decree the suit prematurely. 4. The Court set aside the ex-parte order and trial court's judgment, treating the suit as a money claim for rent recovery. Witnesses already cross-examined by defendants need not be recalled, but plaintiffs' witnesses not cross-examined will be recalled at defendants' expense. Both parties can present additional evidence. 5. The defendants were directed to pay costs to the plaintiffs, cooperate in the trial, and expedite proceedings. The Court allowed the plaintiffs to seek interim relief during execution of the decree. The judgment disposed of the appeal with the outlined directions for further proceedings.
|
