STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. v. SlBARAM BARAL (SJMARAM BARAi)
vidhipandit.com/case/sc-s-1996-2-842-843
Decision dates shown here are day-precision where the judgment's own text states a date the extractor is confident in, and year only otherwise -- never a fabricated day. See the editorial policy for how dates are extracted.
Headnote — Supreme Court Reports (editorial summary, not part of the judgment)
Reporter's headnote (continued) and case details
A STATE OF ORISSA AND ORS. v. ~
SlBARAM BARAL (SJMARAM BARAi) ~
MAY 10, 1996
B
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 :
S.115, Order 9, Rule 13-Revision-Scope of-Application for setting aside ex-parte decree-Trial court setting aside ex-parte decree subject to c payment of Rs. 50-In revision High Court setting aside order of trial court and directing judgment-debtor ta deposit the decretal amount and also the cost of Rs. 7,50o-Held, High Court exceeded its jurisdiction-While deciding the revision, High Court was required to consider whether trial court properly considered the facts to set aside ex parte decree and the case called for D imeiference-Order of High Court set aside and that of trial court restored.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 9055 of 1996.
From the Judgment and Order dated 8.1.92 of the Orissa High Court E in C.R.No. 694 of 1991.
In~rajeet Roy, Adv. Genl., Orissa and P.N. Misra for the Appellants.
Judgment
The following Order of the Court was delivered :
F Though the respondent had been served with notice on August 5, 1992, till date neither the unserved cover nor the acknowledgment has been received back. Under these circumstances, notice must be deemed to have been served.
Leave granted. G The only question is : whether the High Court can direct the appel- !ant to deposit the decretal amount with costs of Rs. 7,500 as a condition • to setting aside the ex parte decree? The respondent laid the suit to recover a sum of Rs. 1,46,820 against the appellants. The suit came to be decreed H ex parte. The appellant has filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 842
STATE v. S!BARAM BARAL (SIMARAM BARA!) 843
CPC to set aside the ex parte decree. The trial Court set aide the ex parte A
- decree subject to payment of Rs. 50. The High Court in the impugned order dated January 8, 1992 in CR. No. 694/91 allowed the revision and set aside the order of the trial Court and directed the appellants to deposit the decretal amount and the costs. Order 41, Rule 1(3) of CPC provides thus: B "Whether the appeal is against a decree for payment of money, the appellant shall, within such time as the Appellate Court may allow, deposit the amount disputed in the appeal or furnish such security in respect thereof as the Court may think it." _.. When an appellate power is exercised on an appeal filed against the c decree of the trial Court, the Court exercises judicial discretion to grant conditional stay of the execution of the money decree reasonably based on fact situation. In this case, there is no appeal before the Hii;h Court against ex parte decree of the trial Court. The trial Court itself set aside the ex pmte decree subject to the payment of the cost. When revision was carried, the High Court was required to consider whether the trial Court properly considered the facts to set aside the ex-pa1te decree and the case called for interference. It cannot exceed its jurisdiction in directing the appellant to deposit the entire decretal amount and also the cost of Rs. 7,500. The explanation given by the State is well justified as no one takes responsibility for the lapses. Each would pass the buck on the other. Ultimately, it would be the public justice which would suffer and put to jeopardy. Under these circumstances, the order of the High Court is set aside and that of the trial Court is restored.
The appeal is accordingly allowed. No costs. F R.P. Appeal allowed.
/
Report an error in this judgment →
Contains information from the Indian High Court / Supreme Court Judgments dataset, licensed under CC-BY-4.0