Setting aside decree ex parte against defendant
Full Text
In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit:
Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants also:
Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim.
Explanation.—Where there has been an appeal against a decree passed ex parte under this rule, and the appeal has been disposed of on any ground other than the ground that the appellant has withdrawn the appeal, no application shall lie under this rule for setting aside that ex parte decree.
Plain English Summary
The master statutory remedy for defendants to set aside an ex parte decree upon demonstrating that summons was not duly served or that appearance was prevented by sufficient cause, subject to cost terms, the second proviso on irregularity, and the appellate explanation bar.
Key Legal Elements
- Two Independent Statutory Grounds: (1) Summons was not duly served; OR (2) Prevented by sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing.
- Conditional Terms: Court may impose costs or require deposit/security of the decretal amount into court.
- Indivisible Decree Proviso: If the ex parte decree is joint and inseparable, it is set aside against ALL defendants.
- Second Proviso (1976 Amendment): Mere technical defect/irregularity in service is not fatal if defendant had actual knowledge/notice and sufficient time.
- Appellate Explanation Bar: If defendant filed regular appeal under Section 96(2) and it was decided on merits/limitation (anything other than withdrawal), Rule 13 application is barred (Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar).
- Limitation: 30 days under Article 123 of Limitation Act from date of decree, or from date of knowledge if summons was not duly served.
Practical Note
The Master Guide to Setting Aside Ex Parte Decrees (Order IX Rule 13): 1. Landmark Precedents: (a) G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada (2000) 3 SCC 54: The words 'sufficient cause' must receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice. When defendant approaches court immediately after learning of the decree, the court should set aside the decree on reasonable terms of costs rather than shutting out defense. (b) Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar (2005) 1 SCC 787 & Neerja Realtors (2018): Defendant has two remedies against ex parte decree: (i) Application under Order IX Rule 13, and (ii) First Appeal under Section 96(2). Defendant can prosecute both simultaneously; but if appeal is decided on merits, Rule 13 application ceases to be maintainable. (c) Parimal v. Veena (2011) 9 SCC 720: 'Sufficient cause' means an explanation beyond the control of the party (not deliberate inaction or gross negligence). 2. Application Header: 'Application on behalf of Defendant under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC for Setting Aside the Ex Parte Judgment and Decree dated [Date] along with Stay of Execution Proceedings'. 3. Limitation Calculation under Article 123 Limitation Act: - If summons was duly served: 30 days from date of decree. - If summons was NOT duly served: 30 days from the date the defendant gained actual knowledge of the decree (e.g. upon receiving notice from execution court).
हिंदी पाठ
किसी ऐसे मामले में जिसमें प्रतिवादी के विरुद्ध कोई एकपक्षीय डिक्री (Decree Ex Parte) पारित की गई है, वह उस न्यायालय में जिसके द्वारा डिक्री पारित की गई थी, उसे अपास्त (Set aside) करने के आदेश के लिए आवेदन कर सकेगा; और यदि वह न्यायालय का यह समाधान कर देता है कि समन की सम्यक् तामील नहीं हुई थी, अथवा जब वाद की सुनवाई के लिए पुकार हुई थी तब वह किसी पर्याप्त हेतुक (Sufficient Cause) के कारण उपसंजात होने से निवारित रहा था, तो न्यायालय खर्चे के संबंध में, न्यायालय में धन जमा करने के संबंध में या अन्यथा ऐसे निबंधनों पर, जैसे वह ठीक समझे, उसके विरुद्ध की डिक्री को अपास्त करने का आदेश करेगा और वाद में आगे कार्यवाही करने के लिए एक दिन नियत करेगा:
परन्तु जहां डिक्री ऐसी प्रकृति की है कि उसे केवल ऐसे प्रतिवादी के विरुद्ध ही अपास्त नहीं किया जा सकता, वहां उसे सभी या अन्य प्रतिवादियों में से किसी के विरुद्ध भी अपास्त किया जा सकेगा:
परन्तु यह और कि कोई भी न्यायालय केवल इस आधार पर कि समन की तामील में कोई अनियमितता (Irregularity) हुई थी, पारित एकपक्षीय डिक्री को अपास्त नहीं करेगा, यदि उसका यह समाधान हो जाता है कि प्रतिवादी को सुनवाई की तारीख की सूचना थी और उसके पास उपसंजात होने और वादी के दावे का उत्तर देने के लिए पर्याप्त समय था।
स्पष्टीकरण।—जहां इस नियम के अधीन पारित किसी एकपक्षीय डिक्री के विरुद्ध कोई अपील की गई है और उस अपील का निपटारा इस आधार से भिन्न किसी आधार पर कर दिया गया है कि अपीलार्थी ने अपील वापस ले ली है, वहां उस एकपक्षीय डिक्री को अपास्त करने के लिए इस नियम के अधीन कोई आवेदन नहीं होगा।