9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Jurisdictional error in declining to set aside ex parte decree under Rule 4 of Order 37. Analysis: The case involved an appeal from the High Court of Delhi regarding the setting aside of an ex parte decree under Rule 4 of Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure (C.P.C.). The key issue was whether the High Court erred in declining to set aside the decree based on the appellant's failure to disclose sufficient facts to defend the suit. The appellant, a tenant, continued to occupy a residential flat after the tenancy period ended, leading to a suit by the landlord for non-payment of electricity and water charges. The suit was decreed ex parte as the appellant failed to respond to the summons for judgment. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application under Rule 4 of Order 37 C.P.C. to set aside the decree, which was dismissed for lack of special circumstances justifying defense. The appellant's counsel argued that there was no proof of notice sent to the appellant and that the appellant had deposited an advance amount with the respondent. However, the respondent contended that the summons for judgment was duly issued, and the appellant did not present any defense in the application to set aside the decree. The court analyzed Rule 4 of Order 37 C.P.C., emphasizing the need for "special circumstances" to set aside an ex parte decree. The term "special circumstances" was defined as exceptional, extraordinary, and significant factors justifying the reversal of the decree. The court highlighted the distinction between suits under Order 37 and ordinary suits, outlining the specific procedures and requirements for setting aside ex parte decrees in each case. In this instance, the court found that while the appellant had shown cause for absence during the decree, there was a lack of disclosed facts entitling the appellant to defend the case. The High Court's decision was upheld as the appellant failed to provide circumstances justifying a defense in the application under Rule 4 of Order 37. The court also addressed the appellant's grievance regarding the rate of interest, reducing it from 18% to 6% per annum. The appellant was directed to deposit the decree amount as security, which could be withdrawn or adjusted based on the court's decision. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed with modifications to the interest rate, and no costs were awarded. In conclusion, the court found no jurisdictional error in the High Court's decision and upheld the order with modifications to the interest rate, emphasizing the importance of disclosing sufficient facts to defend a suit under Rule 4 of Order 37 C.P.C.
|
