The Rajasthan High Court has clarified that setting aside an ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is not justified in the absence of a reasonable or sufficient cause for the defendant’s non-appearance; procedural fairness must be maintained, and courts are not to exercise undue indulgence contrary to established procedure. This judgment upholds precedent and is binding on subordinate courts within Rajasthan, providing authoritative guidance on ex parte decree procedures in civil litigation.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CR/23/2025 of DAKHA MEGHWAL D/O RAMNARAYAN W/O GAJANAND MEGHWAL Vs INDRA BAI W/O HEMRAJ, CNR RJHC021088662024 |
| Date of Registration | 23-01-2025 |
| Decision Date | 28-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | UMA SHANKER VYAS |
| Court | High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts within Rajasthan |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established procedural law under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC |
| Type of Law | Civil Procedure |
| Questions of Law |
|
| Ratio Decidendi | The Court held that the mere non‐appearance of a defendant is insufficient to set aside an ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC unless a reasonable or sufficient cause is demonstrated. The trial court acted improperly by setting aside an ex parte decree without any valid cause shown for the defendant’s absence. Courts are obliged to follow procedural fairness and should not depart from established processes or show unnecessary leniency that would undermine finality in litigation. Only the party suffering from procedural irregularity, not a party at fault, can seek relief from an ex parte decree. |
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Reference to the requirement for sufficient cause under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and the court’s duty to follow established procedure. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court | A suit was filed in 2014. After prolonged absence and delays by the defendant (respondent), the court proceeded ex parte and decreed the suit. The respondent later sought to set aside the decree without establishing sufficient cause for non‐appearance. The trial court set aside the ex parte decree invoking undue leniency. The High Court found this procedurally and legally unsound due to lack of sufficient explanation for absence. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Rajasthan |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, may be cited before the Supreme Court as persuasive authority |
| Follows | Affirms settled interpretation of Order 9 Rules 7 and 13 CPC; follows law requiring “sufficient cause” for restoration |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reinforces that “sufficient cause” for non‐appearance must be shown for setting aside an ex parte decree; mere absence or post facto justifications are not enough.
- Undue leniency or indiscriminate setting aside of ex parte decrees by courts is impermissible without compliance with established statutory and procedural requirements under Order 9 Rules 7/13 CPC.
- Where a party fails to explain their absence with plausible and precise reasons, courts are not bound to act in their favor – even in cases involving women or persons from rural background.
- Lawyers should prepare and present detailed cause affidavits if seeking to restore ex parte decrees and be aware that vague or unsubstantiated grounds will not suffice.
- Can be cited to prevent abuse of court process and to uphold finality and proper procedure in civil adjudication.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The High Court examined the chronology of the trial, highlighting that the respondent (defendant) was repeatedly absent and failed to provide a legitimate explanation for her non‐appearance after due opportunity was granted.
- The judgment scrutinized the trial court’s order setting aside the ex parte decree, finding it inconsistent with the requirements of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which mandates that “sufficient cause” must be strictly proved.
- The court rejected the defense’s plea that the respondent’s rural background or status as a woman warranted leniency, clarifying that procedural fairness must apply equally.
- The High Court emphasized that mere non‐appearance or vague reasons, without any detailed or corroborated evidence, do not constitute “sufficient cause.”
- The court reasoned that the trial court’s exercise of discretion “against the facts and law” cannot be upheld if it disregards procedural mandates.
- The judgment thus set aside the trial court’s order restoring the ex parte decree, restoring the original decree in favor of the petitioner.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner
- The respondent (defendant) was repeatedly absent without valid reason and failed to pursue the case diligently.
- The trial court demonstrated undue leniency by setting aside the ex parte decree despite there being no sufficient or justifiable cause shown.
- The respondent did not present any cogent or convincing justification for non‐appearance.
Respondent
- The respondent is a woman from a rural background and was unable to attend court on certain occasions.
- Asserted there was no intention to neglect the proceedings and sought indulgence from the court.
Factual Background
The civil dispute originated in 2014. The respondent (defendant) was absent on multiple critical dates, resulting in the court proceeding ex parte and eventually passing a decree against her. The respondent later sought to set aside the ex parte decree, claiming an inability to attend. The trial court accepted this application, set aside the ex parte decree, and restored the suit. The petitioner challenged this on grounds of abuse of process and lack of sufficient cause.
Statutory Analysis
- The judgment focuses on the interpretation of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
- The court affirms that “sufficient cause” is a statutory prerequisite for setting aside an ex parte decree.
- The court clarified that the statutory standard requires strict compliance and cannot be diluted based on sympathetic or extraneous considerations.
- No reading down or reading in applied; plain application of the procedural provision was enforced.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The ruling adheres to established law, confirming the prevailing interpretation of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on ex parte decrees.