9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside an ex parte decree was barred by res judicata. 2. Whether the decree in Suit 134 of 1956 was an ex parte decree or a decree on the merits under Order XVII, Rule 3, Civil Procedure Code. 3. The applicability of inherent jurisdiction under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, in the context of setting aside ex parte orders. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Res Judicata and Application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code: The appellant's application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code, to set aside an ex parte decree was initially dismissed as barred by res judicata. The principle of res judicata applies to decisions made at different stages of the same suit. However, the court concluded that the decision or direction in an interlocutory proceeding under Order IX, Rule 7, does not constitute res judicata for an application under Order IX, Rule 13. The latter is a specific statutory remedy for setting aside ex parte decrees, and the Code's policy favors decisions after hearing both parties. The court emphasized that the hearing was completed on May 29, 1958, and the application under Order IX, Rule 7, was incompetent at that stage. Consequently, the findings in the order dated May 31, 1958, could not bar the hearing of the application under Order IX, Rule 13. 2. Nature of the Decree in Suit 134 of 1956: The respondents argued that the decree in Suit 134 of 1956 was not an ex parte decree but one on the merits under Order XVII, Rule 3. The court noted that all proceedings, including the order sheet dated May 29, 1958, and subsequent applications, were based on the understanding that the decree was ex parte. The Civil Judge's judgment explicitly stated that the decree was ex parte. The court found no flaw in the facts presented, confirming that the terms of Order XVII, Rule 3, were not met, and the decree was indeed ex parte. 3. Inherent Jurisdiction under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code: The respondents contended that even if Order IX, Rule 7, was inapplicable, the court had inherent jurisdiction under Section 151, Civil Procedure Code, to entertain the application. The court clarified that inherent powers cannot override express provisions of the law. Order IX, Rule 7, and Order IX, Rule 13, exhaustively cover situations involving non-appearance of defendants. The court emphasized that there was no hiatus between the reservation of judgment and its pronouncement, making the invocation of inherent powers unnecessary. The court concluded that the Civil Judge lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application under Order IX, Rule 7, and the reasons given in the order could not bar the hearing of the petition under Order IX, Rule 13. Conclusion: The appeal was allowed, and the application under Order IX, Rule 13, to set aside the ex parte decree in Suit 134 of 1956 was remanded to the trial judge for disposal on the merits. The appellant was entitled to costs throughout, with costs incurred after the remand to be provided for by the courts below.
|
