Submission of i.a. after the announcement of date ex-parte judgment
Balaji Bakthavathsal
(Querist) 05 August 2015
This query is : Resolved
In a Civil Suit filed in the lower court, the respondents have been declared ex-parte and the plaintiff at the time of giving ex-parte evidence took the oath and filed affidavit. The judge too ordered the date for delivering the ex-parte judgment. At this stage, the respondent entered and submitted an I.A. seeking to set aside the ex-parte order.
I request the learned lawyers to clarify the following doubts.
Is it not the duty of the office of the court to verify the stage of the suit whether it is still pending or date of judgement ordered etc. before numbering the I.A. petition ?
Can the admission of the I.A. be entertained once the date of judgment is pronounced ?
Guest
(Expert) 05 August 2015
Respondent Would have Justified his absence with Valid Legal Reasons.Once he had appeared the Case would Progress in Normal Course.Stage of the Suit would be Ex Parte that's it which had become Regular after the Respondent's appearance.
Balaji Bakthavathsal
(Querist) 05 August 2015
Sir, the query is whether the I.A. can be admitted once the ex-parte evidence is over and the judgment date is pronounced.
Guest
(Expert) 05 August 2015
Yes Please .....
dev kapoor
(Expert) 05 August 2015
Hello Balaji,
The already given reply needs a little elucidation.
Any proceedings can be initiated on behalf of defendants prior to announcement of judgment.This makes no difference that ex parte evidence is over and matter posted for judgment.
Law contemplated two kinds of situations in this context.One, ex parte proceedings.Two, ex parte decree.You case falls in category one.In this case defendant can appear at any time before judgment is announced and (i) either seek to set aside ex parte proceedings or (ii) participate in the proceedings. In case judgment is announced it follows a decree.In that event defendant can exercise his right and file petition for setting aside EX PARTE DECREE.A time limit is prescribed for such an action from the date he joined the proceedings.Even otherwise court adopts liberal approach in extending time and allows such petition to be heard despite lapse of statutory time EX PARTE DECREE can be set aside on certain terms and conditions like imposing costs to the defendant.If the defendant does not chose to file petition for setting aside ex parte Decree,he has another choice i.e. he may file appeal against ex parte decree.
Hope this satisfies you dear.
Guest
(Expert) 05 August 2015
Mr. Balaji,
Your relation with the case, the plaintiff, the defendant, etc., is not understood.
Balaji Bakthavathsal
(Querist) 05 August 2015
Thanks to all the learned lawyers for your valuable views. Dear Mr. Dhingra Saab, in this case, I am the plaintiff who is fighting for justice for the past 5 years. In my case, the respondents have been declared as ex-parte on 01.03.2011. And the respondent files the I.A. requesting to set aside the ex-parte order on 07.04.2014, a period well after three years. The I.A. petition was dismissed. Then he moves to High Court with CRP. Citing the CRP filed in the High Court, he pleads in the lower court to stay the prooceeding through another I.A. That too was dismissed. Now, he filed another I.A. stating that the plaint should be dismissed as the plaintiff has suppressed the W.P. Petition filed in the High Court. But the suit in the lower court was filed based on the advice of the High Court while dismissing the W.P. This is the brief history. I hope that I have made the points clear.
Thanks & Regards
Balaji
Guest
(Expert) 05 August 2015
Dear Balaji,
Thanks for your clarification.
Implications of law always depends upon the adequate background and the case history, but not on general academic question that too if presented in third person. That goes only to the disadvantage of the querist, as the querist can only land in a confused state of mind on account of varied replies, as based on individual perceptions in the absence of the most essential basic facts of the case.
However, you have still not discussed about the cause of absence of the defendant for three years at a stretch, as he would have quoted in his applications.
Anyway, to avoid injustice to be caused to anyone, even in ex-parte judgment, the defendant has the right to be heard appropriately, if he comes forward with genuibe cause for remaining absent during the proceedings.
But, your case seems to be strong enough, on account of continued absence of the defendand for three years.
Balaji Bakthavathsal
(Querist) 05 August 2015
Thanks Dhingra Saab for your derailed clarification. Actually, the suit is for declaring the fraudulent registrations made on our property which is in our possession and occupation. Some unscrupulous elements created fake encumbrances like Gift Deed, Sale Deed etc. on our property with some fake documents. The Registrar was challenged in the High Court for his reckless act registering documents blindly. ans my petition sought prayer to declare the registrations as null and void. The High Court while dimissing my petition, advised me to approach the lower court for relief and thus I filed the suit. The opponents being fraudulent persons, do not have any documents to claim the property. Since there is no punishment in Civil Dispute, these culprits attempted to grab the property. They simply just to drag the issue, with the hope to extort money from us, dragging the suit. In his petition to set aside the ex-parte order, the respondent did not mention any valid reason nor sought condonation of delay and that is why the IA was rejected. I fully agree that the opponents should be given a fair chance and that is why I included them as respondents as otherwise the documents submitted by me and held with the registrars themselves are enough to resolve the case. But, too much consideration should not be given to the respondents in our legal system is what I feel strongly.
Thanks for your valuable advice.
Regards
Balaji
Guest
(Expert) 05 August 2015
Dear Balaji,
I have already given my opinion. The judge has to give credence only to the proof amd the merits of the case, whether produced by the plaintiff or the defendant. Just fight strongly, if it is fraudulent case.
