In Brief
Nanda Dulal Pradhan & another (appellants) were defendants who failed to file a written statement despite multiple opportunities in a 2003 suit. An ex-parte judgment was passed against them. Their appeal to the First Appellate Court to set aside the ex-parte decree was allowed. The High Court reversed this, holding that reopening the suit was futile without a written statement. The Supreme Court held that while defendants cannot file a written statement late, they may participate in the suit, cross-examine witnesses, and argue on merits. The Court set aside the High Court's order and restored the First Appellate Court's judgment allowing the suit to proceed.", <parameter name="cited_cases">[ { "raw_citation": "AIR 1955 SC 425", "case_name": "Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal", "cited_year": "1955", "paragraph": "3", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "AIR 1964 SC 993", "case_name": "Arjun Singh v. Mohindra Kumar", "cited_year": "1964", "paragraph": "3", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court" }, { "raw_citation": "AIR 1955 SC 425", "case_name": "Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal", "cited_year": "1955", "paragraph": "3.1", "treatment": "relied", "treatment_by": "this_court", "treatment_quote": "However, as observed and held by this Court in the case of Sangram Singh (supra) on setting aside the ex parte decree and on restoration of the suit the parties to the suit shall be put to the same position as they were at the time when the ex parte judgment and decree was passed and the defendants may not be permitted to file the written statement as no written statement was filed." } ]
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.