#Ex Parte Decree

A Madras High Court second appeal confirmed that an ex-parte decree under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act can be set aside when the balance sale price is deposited after an unreasonable delay. The decision upholds the 1988 sale deed and signals that delayed payments defeat specific-performance orders, affecting buyers and sellers in property deals.

A Delhi High Court ruled that serving summons through a process server at the defendant’s registered office satisfies CPC requirements, overturning an ex-parte decree. The court granted the defendant a conditional order to file its defence within a stipulated period, underscoring that proper service can revive a litigant’s right to contest a suit.

State Consumer Commission, West Bengal condoned a 775-day delay in filing an appeal under Section 69 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2019, citing financial constraints and lack of prior knowledge of an ex-parte order as sufficient explanation. The ruling clarifies the threshold for condonation of delay in consumer fora appeals.

Kerala High Court restored an application to set aside an ex parte decree, citing procedural lapses under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The trial court was directed to dispose of the suit within six months, emphasizing the need for adherence to procedural justice in civil proceedings.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that substituted service under Order V Rule 20 CPC does not constitute 'due service' for the purpose of Article 123 of the Limitation Act, allowing condonation of delay if applications are filed within 30 days of knowledge of an ex parte decree. This holding ensures litigants are not prejudiced by procedural technicalities in service of summons.

The Bombay High Court has ruled that a litigant’s diligent pursuit of relief under Order IX Rule 13 CPC - even after prior rejections - amounts to sufficient cause to condone excessive delay in filing a first appeal. This clarifies that procedural good faith in challenging an ex parte decree, not just the final outcome, can justify extension of limitation under the Limitation Act, benefiting litigants misled by procedural lapses.

Karnataka High Court sets aside an ex-parte divorce decree after finding summons served on an incorrect name and address, violating principles of natural justice. The court emphasized that constructive service (e.g., pasting on electric poles) is insufficient when personal service is feasible, remanding the case for fresh hearing within six months.

Bombay HC rules that a client cannot be penalized for delays caused by counsel's abandonment, holding it as a bona fide 'sufficient cause' under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The court imposed costs on the errant counsel while condoning a 19-month delay, reinforcing the advocate's duty of diligence and the client's right to justice.

The Andhra Pradesh High Court ruled that restitution under Section 144 CPC is not discretionary but mandatory when possession is taken pursuant to an ex parte decree later set aside. The court directed fresh orders after examining execution records, reinforcing that parties must be restored to their original position without delay.

The Chhattisgarh High Court has ruled that delays in filing applications to set aside ex parte decrees due to counsel’s negligence cannot automatically bar relief, especially when the underlying dispute involves serious allegations of forgery. The judgment emphasizes that courts must examine the merits of the case before dismissing applications on procedural grounds, protecting litigants from being victimized by their advocates’ failures.

The Supreme Court has ruled that a succession certificate granted without impleading a minor legal heir or appointing a guardian violates natural justice and is voidable under Order IX Rule XIII CPC. This sets a mandatory procedural safeguard for minors in inheritance matters, ensuring their rights cannot be extinguished by technical omissions in notice or representation.

Madhya Pradesh High Court rules that subsequent purchasers can impugn an ex parte decree for specific performance if the original plaintiff failed to demonstrate readiness to perform or if service was improper. The judgment sets a precedent for third-party challenges in property disputes under the Specific Relief Act, reinforcing procedural fairness in contract enforcement.

Gauhati High Court rules that strict compliance with Order V Rule 17 CPC-affixation of summons-is a prerequisite for substituted service via newspaper publication. Non-compliance renders ex-parte decrees void, even if defendants had actual notice, reinforcing procedural safeguards in civil disputes.

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that issuing symbolic possession during a pending appeal against an ex-part decree undermines the very purpose of appellate review. Where a stay application is sub judice and the decree’s validity is contested under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, execution must halt to prevent irreparable erosion of the appellant’s statutory rights.

The Supreme Court barred appellate courts from admitting additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 CPC to salvage title claims rooted in unsubstantiated assertions of ancestral ownership, reinforcing that trial courts are the sole forum for establishing title and that procedural negligence cannot be remedied on appeal. This sets a critical precedent for property litigants and practitioners handling title disputes where possession is contested without documentary proof.