Breaking SUPREME COURT CRACKS DOWN ON HOME LOAN SUBVENTION FRAUD: CBI PROBE EXPEDITED, 30-DAY SANCTION DEADLINE FOR BANK OFFICIALS
New Delhi · Tuesday, 11 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2018-01-25 dismissed

Jayaprakash & Anr vs T.S. David & Ors

Bench: 2 — Abhay Manohar Sapre

In Brief

The appellants sought specific performance of a property sale agreement against four defendants. An ex parte decree was initially passed against all four defendants. Only defendants 3 and 4 applied to set it aside under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC; the entire decree was set aside, but defendants 1 and 2 were not given notice of these proceedings, contrary to Kerala's local amendment requiring notice. On remand, defendants 1 and 2 received no fresh notice but were again decreed against ex parte. The High Court remanded for fresh trial. The Supreme Court upheld the remand, holding that procedural infirmities—failure to notify all defendants in Order 9 proceedings and failure to issue fresh notice on remand—necessitated fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Civil Procedure Specific Performance Order 9 Rule 13 Ex Parte Decree Remand

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login