Holding

The Land Revenue Court has jurisdiction to set aside an ex‑parte decree, and the ex‑parte decree in this case was set aside.

Summary

The appellant, Rabindra Singh, who had been residing in the United States for over 25 years, was decreed ex‑parte in a partition suit filed by his brother without ever being served notice, despite the plaintiff’s knowledge of his correct address. He filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC to set aside the decree, but the Tehsildar, Collector, Financial Commissioner and the High Court dismissed it, holding that only a review under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 could be invoked. The Supreme Court held that the land revenue court possesses incidental power to set aside an ex‑parte decree on the ground of violation of natural justice, and that the application under Order IX Rule 13 was maintainable. It further ruled that substituted service under Sections 20‑22 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act could not be deemed effective when the defendant resided abroad and that the plaintiff’s suppression of service amounted to fraud, establishing sufficient cause to set aside the decree. Consequently, the ex‑parte decree was set aside and the appeal allowed.

Issues considered

Whether the Land Revenue Court has jurisdiction to set aside an ex‑parte decree in a partition suit under the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887.
Whether an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC is maintainable in such proceedings.
Whether substituted service under Sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act is valid when the defendant resides abroad.
Whether non‑service of notice, amounting to fraud and violation of natural justice, provides sufficient cause to set aside the decree.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order IX Rule 13, s. Section 151
Constitution of Indias. Article 142, s. Article 144
Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887s. 20, s. 21, s. 22

Subjects

ex‑parte decreeland revenue court jurisdictionPunjab Land Revenue Actnatural justicesubstituted servicepartition suitreview jurisdictionOrder IX Rule 13service of noticefraudprejudice

Judgment

[2008] 8 S.C.R. 813

i RABIN ORA SINGH A

FINANCIAL COMMISSIONE~, COOPERATION, PUNJAB
AND OTHERS
(Civil Appeal No. 3574 Of 2008)
MAY 14, 2008 B

• (S.B.SINHA, LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA, AND

'" MARKANDEY KAT JU, JJ]

Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 - ss. 20, 21 & 22 - c
Ex pa rte Decree - Setting aside of - Jurisdiction of Land Rev-
enue Court - On facts , partition suit decreed exparte - Non-
service of notice to defendant, who had been residing abroad
for last 25 years, though plaintiff had full knowledge of his cor-
rect address - In the plaint address of defendant given as of
D
nearby District- Application u/o IX r 13 CPC by defendant-.
Dismissed by Tehsildar holding that provision of Review were
attracted and not application u/o IX r 13 -Application dismissed
by Revenue Officers as also High Court - On appeal held:
Plaintiff fraudulently suppressed service of notice upon de-
fendant- Tehsildar could have exercised power of review and E
set aside exparte decree - In .such situations courts have in-
cidental power to set aside the decree on grounds of violation of
principles of natural justice -For exercise of jurisdiction, source
}. of power is relevant and not failure to mention correct provisions
j
of law - Further, substituted service could not have been effected F
on defendant for service of notice at address at USA - Also, it ·
cannot be said that defendant was not prejudiced - Thus, defen-
dant established sufficient cause for setting aside exparte de-
cree - Order of High Court not sustainable and set aside .
G
The question which arose for consideration was
,A whether the Land Revenue Court has jurisdiction to set
aside ex-parte decree.
A suit for partition was decreed ex parte against the
813 H
814 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008]8 S.C.R.

A appellant. The appellant was residing in USA for last more '
1'

than 25 years and had never been served with any no-
tice, although respondent No. 4 had full knowledge of his
correct address. The appellant filed application under Or
IX r 13 r/w s.151 CPC on the ground that the ex patte order
B was invalid for non service of notice to the appellant.
Tehsildar exercising the power as Assistant Collector dis-
missed the application holding it to be not maintainable. ~

It held that the Revenue Officer could set aside an ex patte -1
order in particular proceedings by means of review as
c provisions for setting aside ex patte decree under CPC "'
were not applicable. The Collector dismissed the appeal. "
The Commissioner as also Financial Commissioner dis-
missed the revision petition. High Court upheld the or-
der. Hence the present appeal.
D Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1. The parties are brothers. The allegation
of the appellant that he had been residing in USA for last
more than 25 years was not unknown to the respondent
No. 4. In the plaint of the suit filed by respondent no.3, the
E address of the appellant was stated to be at village
Khotheran Distt. Nawanshahr. If, even according to re-
spondent No.4/plaintiff, the appellant had executed a Gen-
eral Power of Attorney in favour of somebody, notices
could have been served on him through his constituted !
F attorney. The said fact could have been disclosed in the
plaint itself and steps could have be~lil taken to serve the
summons upon the said constituted attorney. No such
step was taken. Nothing was shown that he could have
accepted notice on behalf of the app~llant and defend the
G suit. [Para 13] [821-F-H]
;i
1.2. The Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887 had been •
enacted at a point of time when agriculturists ordinarily
used to reside in the village. The Authorities under the
Act could entertain application for partition of joint family
H
RABINDRA SINGH v. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, 815
COOPERATION, PUNJAB
i
property. The provisions laying down the mode of ser- A
vice of summons as contained in ss. 20, 21 and 22 of the
Act must, therefore, be construed having regard to the
state of affairs as was obtaining during the relevant pe-
riod. Substituted mode of service is permissible in law but
such substituted mode of service in the changed context 8
of a member of a family residing abroad for a number of
t
.,_ years, cannot be held to be sufficient, particularly when
the plaintiff himself took recourse to suppression veri and
suggestio fafsi. A purported service by beat of drum or
publication of a notice in a local newspaper which has no c
circulation in the USA etc. cannot be said to be an effec-
tive service. With the development of science and tech-
nology the on-going statues cannot be construed in such
a manner so as to take the society backwards and not
forwards. [Para 14] [822-A-B]
D
~ State of Punjab & Ors. v. Mis. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. &
Ors. 2006 (7) SCALE 587 - relied on. ;.ii
1.3. In the instant case, there has been a clear fraudu-
lent attempt on the part of the respondent no. 4 to sup-
press the service of notice upon the appellant. The E
'' Tehsildar resorted to a peculiar logic, that the provisions
of review were attracted and not under Or IX r. 13 for set-
). ting aside the ex-parte proceeding. Even if that be so, the
i ex-parte decree, could have been set aside. She could
have exercised her power of review. All courts in a situa- F
tion of this nature have the incidental power to set aside
an ex parte order on the ground of violation of the prin-
ciples of natural justice. [Para 15] [822-E-G]
Hukam Chand & Ors. v. Malak Ram & ors. 1932 (XI) The
G
,A Labour Law Times 42 - disapproved.
1.4. A defendant in a suit has more than one remedy
as regards setting aside of an ex-parte decree. He can file
an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree; file a
suit stating that service of notice was fraudulently sup- H
816 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

·r
A pressed; prefer an appeal and file an application for re-
view. [Para16) [822-H; 823-A-B]
Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar and another (2005)
1 sec 787 - referred to.

B 1.5. What matters for exercise of jurisdiction is the
source of power and not the failure to mention the cor-
rect provisions of law. Even in the absence of any express •
~
provision having regard to the principles of natural jus-
tice in such a proceeding, the courts will have ample ju-
c risdiction to set aside an ex parte decree, subject of course
to the statutory interdict. [Para 17] [823-E-F]
. Grindlays Bank Ltd. v. Central Govt, Industrial Tribunal
1980 Supp SCC 420; Sangham Tape Co. v. Hans Raj (2005)
9 SCC 331; and Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Bir/a Cotton
D Spinning .and Weaving Mills Ltd. and Another (2005) 13 SCC
777 - referred to.
~-
1.6. A substituted service furthermore is meant to be
resorted to serve the notice at the address known to the
parties where he had been residing last. Appellant had
E been residing in USA for the last about 25 years. He, thus, ,I

ceased to stay for all intent and purport at Village ~
Khotheran, Distt. Nawanshahr. Therefore, no substituted
service could have been effected on him for service of
notice at that address. [Para 18) [823-H; 824-A-B] -'
F
Great Punjab Agro Industries Ltd. vs. Khushin (2005) 13
SCC 503; Naresh Chandra Agarwl v. Bank of Baroda (2001)
3 SCC 163; Kewal Ram v. Ram Lubhai (1987) 2 SCC 344 -
referred to.
G 1.7. Knowledge on the part of the constituted attor-
ney would not be such which would come on the way of
,..,
' .
the appellant in maintaining an application for setting aside
an ex parte decree. Such a contention cannot be raised
in a proceeding for setting aside an ex-parte decree.
H Therefore, the Collector as also the Financial Commis-
RABINDRA SINGH v. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, 817
COOPERATION, PUNJAB

sioner, while exercising their appellate and revisional ju- A
risdiction respectively posed unto themselves wrong
questions and, thus, misdirected themselves in law. The
Commissioner, as also the High Court, committed a seri-
ous error in so far as they proceeded on the basis that
the appellant had not suffered any prejudice. [Paras 20 B
and 21) [824-H; 825-A-C]
• 't' 1.8. Partition had been effected between the parties
by metes and bounds. He could at least in the final de-
cree proceedings, raise several objections as regards al-
lotment of lands. He did not get such an opportunity. c
Where principles of natural justice are required to be com-
plied with, non-affording of an opportunity itself causes
prejudice. Therefore, the courts below ought to have held
that the appellant had been able to establish sufficient
cause for an order setting aside the ex-parte decree. D
[Paras 22 and 23) [825-D-E]
S.L. Kapoor v. Jagmohan (1980) 4 SCC 379 - relied on.
GP. Srivastava v. R. K. Raizada (2000) 3 SCC 54 and
Tea Auction Ltd. v. Grace Hill Tea Industry (2006) 12 SCC E
104 - referred to.
1.9. The impugned judgment cannot be sustained
and is set aside accordingly. However, in exercise of ju-
~ risdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India,
• directions are passed to the appellant with regard to hear- F
ing of the case. [Para 24) [826-H; 827-A-B]
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 3574
of 2008
From the final Judgment and Order dated28.07.2003 of G
)>., the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil
• Writ Pentition No. 11599 of 2003
R.G. Padra, Abhishek Singh, Lalit Srivastava and K.V.
Bharathi Upadhyaya for the Appellant.
H
818 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A Sarup Singh, R.K. Pandey and Kuldip Singh for the Re- '1-·
I
spondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
S.B. SINHA, J. Leave granted.
B 1. Jurisdiction of a Land Revenue Court to set aside an
ex-parte decree is in question in this appeal which arises out of
a judgment and order dated 28th July,2003 passed by the High
Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Civil Writ Peti- '1
tion No. 11599 of 2003.
c
2. A suit for partition was filed by Kulwant Singh, the re-
spondent No.4 herein against the appellant as also the other
respondents. The said suit was decreed ex-parte against the
appellant. He had been residing in Houston, Texas, in the United
D State of America for more than. 25 years. He had never been
served with any notice, although respondent No.4 had full know!-
edge of his correct address.
3. Assistant Collector, 1st Grade, Phagwara, while pass-
ing a judgment and order dated 26th November, 1997 observed
E that no notice could be served upon the appellant.
4. An application in terms of Order IX Rule 13 read with
Section 151 of th.e Code of Civil Procedure was filed by the
appellant herein alleging
. :-.
"That the respondents-applicants were not at all served or ~.
F
notified in any manner whatsoever in the above partition
proceedings. Neither any summons of this court nor any
other process whatsoever of this court was ever served
on the respondent-applicants. And the ex parte order
G dated 26.11.1997 mentioned is thus invalid, illegal and
ineffective on the rights and title of the applicant-
,..__
respondents in the land mentioned above and they are \

entitled to get it set aside. "
5. Tehsildar, Phagwara, exercising his power as Assistant
H Collector, 1•1 Grade, as regards the service of notice upon the
RABINDRA SINGH v. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, 819
COOPERATION, PUNJAB [S.B. SINHA, J.]

i appellant herein, observed in the following terms :- A

"On 3-7-1998, the file was presented and notice issued to
the petitioner in the partition proceedings was received
back un-served which is taken on record. It was reported
that Kulwant Singh son of Uttam Singh is residing in foreign
country and the original file was also not received in the B
court. The next date of hearing was fixed for summoning
") of the record and the parties. The counsel for the
respondents No. 4, 5 and 6 was directed that the correct
address of the petitioner be furnished within two days. On
26-8-98, the file was presented in the court. The notice c
sent to the petitioner was received again without service,
which was taken on record. It was reported by the process
server that the address furnished by the opposite party is
wrong. The original file has been received from the record.
The case was kept for consideration on 10-9-98. On 10- D
9-1998, tf-ie court was not held on account of some official
~ engagement. On 9-10-98 and 16-10-98, I could not make
consideration being busy in official work. Therefore, the
case was kept for 30-10-98 for consideration."
Tehsildar, however, relied upon a commentary by some E
author on Section 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887
wherein the following observation has been made :-

"It is not admissible for a revenue officer to set aside an
). ex parte order in partition proceedings except by means F
• of a review as the provisions of civil procedure code relating
to setting aside of ex parte decree have no application to
such a case."
Holding that the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the
Code of Civil Procedure was not maintainable, the same was G
A dismissed by an order dated 301h October, 1998 .
•
6. An appeal preferred thereagainst was dismissed by the
Collector, Phagwara by an order dated 24th March, 1999
wherein inter alia it was held that the service of notice by substi- H
820 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008] 8 S.C.R.

A tuted service having been taken recourse to as envisaged un- ).-
der Section 20 of the Punjab Land Revenue Act, 1887, the ex-
parte decree could have been validly passed by the Assistant
Collector.
7. A revision petition filed before the Commissioner,
B Jalandhar Division, was dismissed by his order dated 281h Au-
gust, 2002.
A
8. A revision petition filed thereagainst had also been dis- _.,
missed by the Financial Commissioner by his order dated 191h
c May, 2003.
9. By reason of the impugned judgment the High Court
while noticing the purported finding of the Commissioner that
the attorney of the appellant had the knowledge of the proceed-
ing but did not appear, held :-
D
"We would have certainly gone deeper in the issue as to
whether provisions of Code of Civil Procedure were
applicable to partition proceedings and the revenue officers
hadjurisdiCtion to set aside the same or it is only a review
application which is competent but, inasmuch as the matter
E has been discussed on merits as well as by learned
Collector and the Commissioner and the findings recorded
by the said revenue offices appear to be correct,,it would
be an exercise in futility to go into the question, as
mentioned above."
F
It was furthermore opined that the appellant has not suf-
fered any prejudice.
10. Indisputably the authorities under the Punjab Land
Revenue Act, 1887 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') could
G entertain an application for partition of the joint family property.
It lays down -the procedures for summoning the parties, wit- #..
nesses etc. For the said purpose it has the power of a civil •
court. Section 20 of the Act provides for the mode of service of
summons, stating that the same shall be served personally on
H the person to whom it is addressed, or, failing him his recog-
RABINDRA SINGH v. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, 821
COOPERATION, PUNJAB [S.B. SINHA, J.]

nized agent or an adult male member of his family usually resid- A
ing with him .
. 11. Section 21 of the Act provides for the mode of service
of notice, order or proclamation or copy thereof in the following
terms:
B
"21. Mode of service of notice, order or proclamation or
copy thereof. -A notice, order or proclamation or copy of
any such document, issued by a Revenue officer for service
on any person shall be served in the manner provided in
the last foregoing section for the service of a summons." c
12. Section 22 of the Act also provides for mode of mak-
ing proclamation in the following terms:-
"22. Mode of making proclamation. -When a proclamation
relating to any land is. issued by a Revenue officer, it shall, 0
in addition to any other mode of publication which may be
prescribed in any provision of this Act, be made by beat
of drum or other customary method, and by the posting of
a copy thereof on a conspicuous place in or near the land
to which it relates."
E
13. In the plaint of the suit filed by respondent No.4 herein,
the address of the appellant was stated to be at "Village
Khotheran, Oistt. Nawanshahr".
Parties are brothers. The allegation of the appellant that
he had been residing in the United States of America for last F
more than 25 years was not, therefore, unknown to the respon-
dent No.4 herein. If, even according to respondent No.4/plain-
tiff, the appellant had executed a General Power of Attorney in
favour of somebody, notices could have been served on him
through his constituted attorney. The said fact could have been G
disclosed in the plaint itself and steps could have been ta~en to
serve the summons upon the said constituted attorney. No such
step was taken. Nothing was shown that he could have ac-
cepted notice on behalf of the appellant and defend the suit.
H
822 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 8 S.C.R.

A 14. The Act had been enacted at a point of time when ag-
riculturists ordinarily used to reside in the village. The provisions
laying down the mode of service of summons as contained in
Sections 20, 21 and 22 of the Act must, therefore, be construed
having regard to the state of affairs as was obtaining during the
s relevant period. Substituted mode of service is permissible in
law but such substituted mode of service in the changed con-
text of a member of a family residing abroad for a number of
years, cannot be held to be sufficient, particularly when the plain-
tiff himself took recourse to suppressio veri and suggestio falsi.
c A purported service by beat of drum or publication of a notice in
a local newspaper which has no circulation in the United States
of America etc. cannot be said to be an effective service. With
the development of science and technology the on-going stat-
ues cannot be construed in such a manner so as to take the
society backwards and not forwards. [See State of Punjab &
0
Ors. v. Mis. Amritsar Beverages Ltd. & Ors. 2006 (7) SCALE
587]
15. In this case there has been a clear fraudulent attempt
on the part of the respondent No.4 to suppress the service of
E notice upon the appellant herein.
The Tehsildar, in his judgment, has resorted to a peculiar
logic. According to her, the provisions of Review were attracted
and not under Order IX Rule 13 for setting aside the ex-parte ...
proceeding. Even if that be so, the ex-parte decree, in our •
F opinion, could have been set aside. She could have exercised
her power of review. The commentary on which reliance was
placed, was made on the basis of a decision of the Financial
Commissioner in Hukam Chand & ors. v. Malak Ram & ors.
[1932 (XI) The Lahore Law Times 42]. The said decision, with
G respect, does not lay down the correct law. All courts in a situa-
tion of this nature have the incidental power to set aside an ex
pa rte order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural
justice. \Ne will deal with this aspect of the matter a little later.
16. A defendant in a suit has more than one remedy as
H
RABINDRA SINGH v. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, 823
COOPERATION, PUNJAB [S.B. SINHA, J.]

"f regards setting aside of an ex-parte decree. He can file an A'
application for setting aside the ex-parte decree; file a suit stat-
ing that service of notice was fraudulently suppressed; prefer
an appeal and file an application for review.
In Bhanu Kumar Jain v Archana Kumar and another
[(2005) 1 SCC 787] this Court held : B

"26. When an ex parte decree is passed, the defendant
t (apart from filing a review petition and a suit for setting
aside the ex pa rte decree on the ground of fraud) has two
clear options, one, to file an appeal and another to file an c
application for setting aside the order in terms of Order 9
Rule 13 of the Code. He can take recourse to both the
proceedings simultaneously but in the event the appeal is
dismissed as a result whereof the ex parte decree passed
by the trial court merges with the order passed by the
0
appellate court, having regard to Explanation appended
to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code a petition undar Order 9
Rule 13 would not be maintainable. However, Explanation
I appended to the said provision does not suggest that the
converse is also true."
E
17. What matters for exercise of jurisdiction is the source
of power and not the failure to mention the correct provisions of
law. Even in the absence of any express provision having re-
gard to the principles of natural justice in such a proceeding,
.. the courts will have ample jurisdiction to set aside an ex parte F
decree, subject of course to the statutory interdict.
In Grindlays Bank Ltd. v Central Govt. Industrial Tribu-
nal [1980 Supp SCC 420] this Court has held that an Industrial
Tribunal has the requisite jurisdiction to recall an ex parte award.
[See also Sangham Tape Co. v Hans Raj (2005) 9 SCC 331 G
and Kapra Mazdoor Ekta Union v. Bir/a Cotton Spinning and
Weaving Mills Ltd. and Another (2005) 13 SCC 777]
18. A substituted service furthermore is meant to be re-
sorted to serve the notice at the address known to the parties H
824 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 8 S.C.R.

A where he had been residing last. Appellant had been residing 'r
in the United States of America for the last about 25 years. He,
thus, ceased to stay for all intent and purport at Village
Khotheran, Distt. Nawanshahr. Therefore, no substituted ser-
vice could have been effected on him for service of notice at
B that address.

19. In Great Punjab Agro Industries Ltd. vs. Khushian :
(2005) 13 SCC 503 this Court held :-

"In view of the order that we propose to pass, it is not
c necessary to recite the entire facts leading to the filing of
the present appeal. Suffice it to say that the suit v-1as
decreed ex part~ by an order dated 16-4-1994. The
application for setting aside the ex parte order has been
rejected by the courts below. Hence, the present petition.
The notice to the appellant is by way of substituted service.
D
The substituted service was published in the Tribune and
the Punjab Kesari which have circulation only in the State
of Punjab. Admittedly, the appellant stays at Bombay. The
newspapers in which the notice was published by way of
substituted service, namely, the Tribune and the Punjab
E Kesari have no circulation in Bombay. Order 5 Rule 20(1-
A) CPC enjoins that if the service of notice· is by
advertisement in the newspaper, it shall be in the daily
~ewspaper circulating in the locality in which the defendant
is last known to have actually and voluntarily resided. In
F the instant case, the procedure prescribed under Order 5 .
Rule 20(1-A) with regard to substituted service has been
violated. In the premises, it cannot be said that the
summons upon the defendant were effectively served. In
this view of the matter, the ex parte decree dated 16-4-
G 1994 is set aside."

See also Naresh Chandra Agarwal v. Bank of Baroda
[(2001) 3 SCC 163) and Kewal Ram v. Ram Lubhai [(1987) 2
sec 3441
H 20. Knowledge on the pa11 of the constituted attorney would
RABINDRA SINGH v. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, 825
COOPERATION, PUNJAB [S.8. SINHA, J.]
"'1
not be such which would come on the way of the appellant in A
maintaining an application for setting aside an ex pa rte decree.
Such a contention cannot be raised in a proceeding for setting
aside an ex-parte decree.
21. The Collector as also the Financial Commissioner,
{
therefore, while exercising their appellate and revisional juris- 8
• diction respectively posed unto themselves wrong questions
-.- and, thus, misdirected themselves in law.

The Commissioner, as also the High Court, in our opinion,
committed a serious error in so far as they proceeded on the c
basis that the appellant had not suffered any prejudice.

22. Admittedly, partition had been effected between the
parties by met.es and bounds. He could at least in the final de-
cree proceedings, raise several objections as regards allotment
of lands. He did not get such an opportunity. Where principles D
~ of natural justice are required to be complied with, nor. afford-
ing of an opportunity itself causes prejudice. {See S.L. Kapoor
v. Jagmohan [(1980) 4 sec 379]}.
23. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the courts below
ought to have held that the appellant had been able to establish E
sufficient cause for an order setting aside the ex-pa rte decree.

24. This Court in GP Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada [(2000)
~ 3 sec 54], it has held that:-
. F
The "sufficient cause" for non-appearance refers to the
date on which the absence was made a ground for
proceeding ex parte and cannot be stretched to rely upon
other circumstances anterior in time. If "sufficient cause"
is made out for non-appearance of the defendant on the
;.. date fixed for hearing when ex parte proceedings were G
• initiated against him, he cannot be penalised for his
previous negligence which had been overlooked and
thereby condoned earlier. In a case where the defendant
approaches the court immediately and within the statutory
time specified, the discretion is normally exercised in his H
826 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008) 8 S.C.R.
)--
A favour, provided the absence was not mala fide or
intentional. For the absence of a party in the case the
·other side can be compensated by adequate costs and
the lis decided on merits.
25. Yet again in Tea Auction Ltd. v. Grace Hill Tea Indus-
B try [(2006) 12 sec 104] it was noticed:-

"12. In G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada a similar question
came up for consideration. A Division Bench of this Court
..,. ,. .
'

opined that the i;rovision under Order 9 Rule 13 of the
c Code of Civil Procedure should receive a broad
construction and no hard-and-fast guidelines can he
prescribed. The courts have a wide discretion to set aside
an ex parte decree on satisfying itself as regards existence
of a "sufficient cause", opining:
D ''The 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance refers to
~
the date on which the absence was made a gmund ~

for proceeding ex parte and cannot be stretched to ~
rely upon other circumstances anterior in time. If
'sufficient cause' is made out for non-appearance of
E the defendant on the date fixed for hearing when ex
parte proceedings were initiated against him, he
cannot be penalised for his previous negligence
which had been overlooked and thereby condoned
~
earlier. In a case where the defendant approaches .
F the court immediately and within the statutory time
specified, the discretion is normally exercised in his
favour, provided the absence was not mala fide or
intentional. For the absence of a party in the case
the other side can be compensated by adequate
costs and the lis decided on merits."
G -~
It was furthermore held that terms for setting aside an ex •
pa rte qecree should be reasonable
2f3. For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judg-
ment cannotbe sustained. It is set aside accordingly However,
H
RABINDRA SINGH v. FINANCIAL COMMISSIONER, 827
COOPERATION, PUNJAB [S.B. SINHA, J.)
,...
we, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 144 of the Con- A
stitution of India direct that the appellant must file his written
statement within four weeks from date. Copies of deposition of
witnesses examined, if any, may be supplied to lawyer of the
appellant within the aforementioned period. The said witnesses
would be offered for cross-examination by the appellant soon B
thereafter. Parties shall not take any adjournment on the dates
•y fixed, save and except for sufficient and cogent reasons. The
Court shall fix such dates which may be convenient to the ap-
pellant and, if possible, the hearing of the case may be taken
up on day to day basis. c
27. This appeal is allowed with the aforementioned ob-
servations and directions. In the facts and circumstances of this
case, there shall be no order as to costs.

N.J. Appeal allowed

•

...