In Brief
The appellant plaintiff filed a suit for mortgage redemption in the High Court. The defendants did not appear at trial and the case proceeded ex parte. After the plaintiff led his evidence and closed his case, the defendants failed to appear to lead their evidence, so the trial court passed a preliminary decree against them. The defendants later sought to set aside the decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC (applicable to ex parte decrees). The trial court rejected this, but the Division Bench allowed it, holding the decree was 'ex parte'. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that since the decree was passed in proceedings under Order 9 Rule 6(a) (ex parte procedure) and the defendants had led no evidence before being proceeded ex parte, the decree was properly characterized as 'ex parte' and could be set aside by defendants on sufficient grounds."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.