In a major ruling reaffirming procedural discipline in civil litigation, the Supreme Court of India has set aside an Allahabad High Court judgment that reopened a property dispute between brothers, originally resolved over three decades ago.
The Apex Court observed that once pleadings are complete and the defendant is set ex parte, his rights are significantly limited, and he cannot lead evidence in defense.
A Division Bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Manmohan passed the judgment while allowing a civil appeal filed against the High Court’s decision, which had allowed multiple applications, including for condonation of delay, recall/restoration, and amendment, ultimately reviving a long-closed matter.
“Once the pleadings are complete but the defendant is set ex parte, and such order has attained finality, the defendant’s rights suffer a curtailment. He cannot produce evidence in defence and hence statements, which are in the nature of factual assertions, cannot be proved by leading evidence,” the Court ruled.
“Generally speaking, the limited right that the defendant, set ex parte, would have is confined to cross-examining the plaintiff’s witnesses. The effort has to be directed towards demonstrating that they are not speaking the truth and, thereby, demolish the case of the plaintiff.”
BACKGROUND: DISPUTE OVER LAND SOLD VIA ALLEGED FRAUD
The litigation dates back to 1987, when the Appellant (Kanchhu) filed a civil suit before the Munsif Court seeking cancellation of a registered sale deed, alleging that the land transaction in favor of the defendants was procured by fraud. The property in question measured over 6 bigha 5 biswa.
After multiple adjournments, the suit was decreed ex parte on August 17, 1991. The Order IX Rule 13 CPC application for setting aside the decree was later dismissed in 2002 by the trial court. A miscellaneous appeal challenging this was also dismissed for lack of sufficient cause.
In December 2011, the writ petition filed by the respondents was dismissed as infructuous. Shockingly, over six years later, the respondents filed an application seeking recall of this order, which was allowed by the High Court, along with the prayer for amendment and setting aside of the ex parte decree.
Aggrieved by this unprecedented revival of a long-concluded matter, the appellant approached the Supreme Court.
SUPREME COURT SLAMS DELAY, INCONSISTENCIES
The Bench strongly disapproved of the High Court’s approach, stating:
“This delay itself would constitute sufficient reason for not condoning the delay in filing the application for recall of the order dismissing the writ petition as infructuous. However, we propose to take a lenient view having regard to the explanation proffered by the respondents that their lawyer did not inform them that the writ petition had been dismissed.”
Still, the Court found the High Court Judge’s reasoning flawed and insufficiently detailed. The Bench noted:
“The Judge did not at all discuss the case set up by the respondents and the defence of the appellant in his written objection while seeking recall of the ex parte decree.”
“It is only on this short ground (that the respondents did not make out sufficient cause for their absence on continuous dates from 24th April 1991 till the suit was decreed on 17th August 1991) that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law.”
CONSTITUTIONAL ANGLE: ARTICLE 227 AND JURISDICTION
The Court reiterated the limited scope of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, emphasizing that a High Court must assess whether sufficient cause was shown by a party before interfering with concurrent findings of lower courts.
“In exercise of jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution, the Judge was required to examine whether the respondents had shown sufficient cause for staying away from the proceedings… not only the trial court but also the appellate court fell in error in not accepting the explanation proffered.”
Furthermore, the Court found no medical proof substantiating the claimed illness of Respondent No. 1 and questioned why the other respondents made no effort to defend the suit.
VERDICT: WRIT PETITION DISMISSED, CIVIL APPEAL ALLOWED
Holding that the dispute had been rightly concluded decades ago, the Supreme Court set aside the High Court’s order, dismissed the writ petition, and restored finality to the ex parte decree passed in 1991.
CAUSE TITLE:
KANCHHU V. PRAKASH CHAND & ORS.
NEUTRAL CITATION: 2025 INSC 542
LEGAL REPRESENTATION:
APPELLANT:
Advocates Brajesh Pandey, Paramhans Sahani, Sunil Kumar Pandey, S.K. Tripathi, Hemant Kumar Niranjan
AOR: M/S Brajesh Pandey & Associates
RESPONDENTS:
AOR: Kiran Kumar PatraAdvocates Chandan Maity, Preetish Sahu
