In Brief
A plaintiff filed a mortgage redemption suit that was heard ex parte after the defendants failed to appear for trial. The Trial Court passed a preliminary decree against the defendants, who then sought to set it aside under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC claiming it was an ex parte decree. The High Court Division Bench allowed their application. The Supreme Court upheld the Division Bench's order, holding that a preliminary decree passed against defendants proceeded ex parte without any evidence constitutes an ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 6(a) and thus is subject to being set aside. The Explanation to Order 17 Rule 2 does not apply where the absent party had not led any evidence.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.