Punjab & Haryana HC: Ex parte decree set aside—No notice of case transfer given to defendant

Case Name: Rama Industrial Ltd. v. Mahalaxmi Chemicals, Bareilly
Date of Judgment: January 9, 2020
Citation: CR-4980-2019
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal

Held: The High Court set aside an ex parte decree and the orders refusing to set it aside, holding that the defendant was not duly informed about the transfer of the case from Rajpura to Dera Bassi. Recording of counsel’s presence in subsequent orders was found to be a routine copy from earlier orders, unsupported by actual appearance. Since no notice of transfer was served, proceeding ex parte was erroneous.

Summary: The respondent had filed a recovery suit for ₹8,90,130/- at Rajpura. On 18.02.2008, the case was adjourned, but subsequently transferred to Dera Bassi without any notice to the defendant. The Dera Bassi court recorded the defendant’s counsel as present on 08.04.2008 and 07.08.2008, but no fresh Vakalatnama was filed and the original counsel later swore an affidavit denying appearance at Dera Bassi. On 05.02.2009, the defendant was proceeded ex parte, leading to a decree dated 22.08.2011. The defendant’s application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree was dismissed by the trial court and upheld in appeal. On revision, the High Court examined the original record and found that no notice of transfer was given, contrary to High Court Rules (Vol I, Ch. 13, R. 6), as affirmed by the Supreme Court in Reena Sadh v. Anjana Enterprises (2008). The absence of notice vitiated the proceedings.

Decision: Revision allowed. Ex parte decree dated 22.08.2011 and orders refusing to set it aside quashed. Trial court directed to proceed from the stage at which the case was transferred from Rajpura. Parties directed to appear on 22.01.2020, with an expeditious trial requested.