Supreme Court Holds Ex Parte Decree Must Be Set Aside Where Minor Was Not Properly Represented and Sufficient Cause Exists
Case Name: Deepesh Maheswari and Another v. Renu Maheswari and Others
Citation: 2026 INSC 306
Date of Judgment/Order: 01 April 2026
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol; Hon’ble Mr. Justice Augustine George Masih
Held: The Supreme Court held that an ex parte decree cannot be sustained where a minor, being a necessary party, was not properly impleaded or represented and was deprived of an opportunity of hearing, and that sufficient cause exists under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside such decree when procedural lapses result in grave prejudice.
Summary: The case arose from grant of a succession certificate in favour of the respondents, which was challenged by the appellants through an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC seeking to set aside the ex parte order. The courts below rejected the application on the grounds that notice had been served and that the applicant had participated in appellate proceedings. Before the Supreme Court, it was revealed that one of the appellants was a minor at the relevant time and had neither been impleaded properly nor represented through a guardian, despite the respondents being aware of his status as a legal heir. The Court found that the public notice issued was vague and did not clearly disclose the nature of proceedings, and further held that expecting a minor to take legal steps independently was legally untenable. It also noted material misstatements in the original succession application and held that such defects could attract revocation under Section 383 of the Indian Succession Act. The Court reiterated that proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC provide a wider remedy independent of appeal and must be applied to ensure fairness where sufficient cause is shown.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned orders of the courts below, allowed the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, quashed the ex parte succession certificate, and restored the proceedings to the trial court with directions for expeditious disposal within one year, while directing parties to appear before the competent court on a date to be fixed.