In Brief
Om Prakash Ram was dispossessed of property following an ex-parte decree that had never been served on him. Although he successfully got that decree set aside in 2003 and the underlying suit was dismissed in 2006, the opposing party (fifth respondent) obtained possession through subsequent demarcation, writ, and contempt proceedings—all based on the now-invalidated decree—without impleading him or giving him notice. The Supreme Court held that because the foundational ex-parte decree was set aside and the suit dismissed, all derivative proceedings based on it must be set aside and possession restored to the appellant, especially as the fifth respondent had suppressed the fact that the decree was being challenged when pursuing those proceedings.",
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.