Date of the Judgment: 18 January 2022
Citation: [Not Available in Source]
Judges: M.R. Shah, J., Sanjiv Khanna, J.
Can a High Court, while hearing a second appeal against a dismissal of a first appeal due to delay, set aside the original trial court’s ex-parte decree? The Supreme Court of India addressed this procedural question in a recent case. The court clarified the appropriate course of action for a High Court when dealing with appeals dismissed on the grounds of limitation. The bench comprised Justices M.R. Shah and Sanjiv Khanna, with the judgment authored by Justice M.R. Shah.

Case Background

The appellants initially filed a suit for declaration and possession, which was decided ex-parte in their favor by the Trial Court on 08 January 2018. The defendant, now the respondent, chose to appeal this decision instead of applying to set aside the ex-parte decree. The respondent’s appeal to the First Appellate Court was delayed by 2 years and 7 months. Although the respondent initially filed an application to condone the delay, it was later withdrawn. Consequently, the First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal due to the absence of a valid condonation of delay application, without considering the merits of the case. The respondent then appealed to the High Court. The High Court not only set aside the First Appellate Court’s decision but also the original ex-parte decree by the Trial Court, remanding the matter back to the Trial Court for a fresh decision. This led to the original plaintiffs appealing to the Supreme Court.

Timeline

Date Event
08 January 2018 Trial Court decreed the suit ex-parte in favor of the original plaintiffs (appellants).
[Not Available in Source] The defendant (respondent) filed an appeal before the First Appellate Court with a delay of 2 years and 7 months.
[Not Available in Source] The respondent filed I.A. No. 1 of 2020 to condone the delay, which was later withdrawn.
10 December 2020 First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal due to the absence of a valid application to condone the delay.
21 April 2021 High Court allowed the second appeal, set aside the decisions of both the First Appellate Court and the Trial Court, and remanded the case to the Trial Court.

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court had initially decreed the suit ex-parte. The respondent, instead of applying to set aside the ex-parte decree, chose to appeal to the First Appellate Court. The First Appellate Court dismissed the appeal due to the absence of a valid application to condone the delay. The High Court, in the second appeal, not only set aside the First Appellate Court’s order but also the original ex-parte decree by the Trial Court, and remanded the matter back to the Trial Court for fresh decision. The Supreme Court noted that the High Court’s action was not in accordance with the procedure established under the Civil Procedure Code.

See also  Supreme Court Clarifies Equivalency of Diploma in Electrical and Electronics Engineering for Junior Engineer Post: Sajid Khan vs. L Rahmath Ullah (20 February 2025)

Legal Framework

The judgment refers to Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which provides for appeals from original decrees. It also mentions Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, which deals with setting aside ex-parte decrees. The Court noted that the High Court seemed to have treated the matter as if it were considering an application under Order IX Rule 13, which was not the case.

The relevant provisions are:

  • Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC): [Not Available in Source]
  • Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC): [Not Available in Source]

Arguments

Appellants’ Arguments:

  • The appellants argued that the High Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by setting aside the original Trial Court decree when the matter before it was an appeal against the dismissal of the first appeal on the ground of limitation.
  • They contended that the High Court should have only decided whether the First Appellate Court was correct in dismissing the appeal due to delay.

Respondent’s Arguments:

  • The respondent argued that the delay in filing the first appeal was due to a mistake in understanding the provisions of the Limitation Act and requested that the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No. 1 of 2020) be revived.
  • The respondent submitted that if the application for condonation of delay is not permitted to be revived, they would be remediless.
Main Submission Sub-Submissions
Appellants: High Court exceeded jurisdiction
  • High Court should not have set aside the Trial Court decree.
  • High Court should have only reviewed the First Appellate Court’s decision on limitation.
Respondent: Delay due to misunderstanding of law
  • Delay was due to a mistake in applying the Limitation Act.
  • Application for condonation of delay should be revived to avoid being remediless.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame issues in a separate section. However, the core issue before the court was:

  • Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Trial Court’s ex-parte decree while hearing a second appeal against the dismissal of a first appeal on the ground of limitation.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

Issue Court’s Decision
Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the Trial Court’s ex-parte decree while hearing a second appeal against the dismissal of a first appeal on the ground of limitation. The Supreme Court held that the High Court was not justified in setting aside the Trial Court’s ex-parte decree. The High Court should have only considered the validity of the First Appellate Court’s decision on limitation.

Authorities

The judgment does not explicitly cite any previous cases or books. It primarily relies on the procedural aspects of the Civil Procedure Code.

Authority Court How it was considered
Section 96, Civil Procedure Code [Not Available in Source] The court referred to this section to highlight that the first appeal was dismissed on the ground of limitation and not on merits.
Order IX Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code [Not Available in Source] The court noted that the High Court erroneously proceeded as if it was considering an application under Order IX Rule 13, which was not the case.
See also  Supreme Court settles the status of Shri Ram Mandir, Indore as a public temple: Shri Ram Mandir Indore vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019)

Judgment

Submission by Parties How it was treated by the Court?
Appellants: High Court exceeded jurisdiction The Court agreed with the appellants. The Supreme Court held that the High Court had acted beyond its jurisdiction by setting aside the Trial Court’s decree.
Respondent: Delay due to misunderstanding of law The Court allowed the respondent to revive their application for condonation of delay before the First Appellate Court.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s judgment, and remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court. The respondent was allowed to revive their application for condonation of delay. The First Appellate Court was directed to first decide on the condonation of delay and then, if the delay is condoned, to decide the first appeal on its merits.

The court observed that the High Court had erred in treating the second appeal as if it were an appeal against an order under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC. The High Court should have only considered whether the First Appellate Court was correct in dismissing the first appeal due to limitation.

The court stated, “If the High Court was of the opinion that the First Appellate Court erred in not condoning the delay in appeal and dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation, in that case the High Court could have set aside the order passed by the First Appellate Court dismissing the appeal on the ground of limitation and thereafter remand the matter to the First Appellate Court to decide the appeal on merits.”

The court further noted, “From the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court, it appears that the High Court proceeded further with the hearing of the appeal as if the High Court was considering the appeal against the order passed on an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, whereas the appeal was against the order and decree passed by the Trial Court, which was affirmed by the First Appellate Court as barred by limitation.”

The Court also stated, “Therefore, the procedure adopted by the High Court is unknown to the procedure known to law under the provisions of the CPC.”

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the procedural irregularities committed by the High Court. The Court emphasized that the High Court should have confined itself to reviewing the First Appellate Court’s decision on limitation rather than delving into the merits of the original suit. The Court’s focus was on ensuring that the correct legal procedures were followed, and that the High Court did not overstep its appellate jurisdiction.

Sentiment Percentage
Procedural Correctness 60%
Adherence to Appellate Jurisdiction 30%
Opportunity for Fair Hearing 10%
Ratio Percentage
Fact 30%
Law 70%
Trial Court passes ex-parte decree
↓
Defendant appeals to First Appellate Court with delay
↓
First Appellate Court dismisses appeal due to delay
↓
Defendant appeals to High Court
↓
High Court sets aside Trial Court decree & remands
↓
Supreme Court reverses High Court decision, remands to First Appellate Court for delay condonation decision

Key Takeaways

  • High Courts should not set aside original decrees when hearing appeals against dismissal of first appeals on limitation grounds.
  • The focus of the High Court in such cases should be on the correctness of the First Appellate Court’s decision regarding limitation.
  • Parties should be given the opportunity to have their delay condoned, if there is a valid reason for the delay.
  • The correct procedure as per the Civil Procedure Code must be followed by all courts.
See also  Supreme Court clarifies Limitation for IBC Applications: Tech Sharp Engineers vs. Sanghvi Movers (2022)

Directions

The Supreme Court directed the following:

  • The High Court’s order was quashed and set aside.
  • The matter was remanded to the First Appellate Court.
  • The respondent was permitted to revive the application for condonation of delay (I.A. No.1 of 2020).
  • The First Appellate Court was directed to first decide on the condonation of delay and then, if the delay is condoned, to decide the first appeal on its merits.

Specific Amendments Analysis

There is no discussion on specific amendments in the judgment.

Development of Law

The judgment clarifies the appropriate procedure for High Courts when dealing with appeals dismissed due to limitation. The ratio decidendi is that a High Court, in a second appeal against the dismissal of a first appeal on the ground of limitation, should not set aside the original decree passed by the Trial Court. Instead, the High Court should focus on whether the First Appellate Court correctly decided the issue of limitation. This judgment reinforces the importance of adhering to the procedural framework established by the Civil Procedure Code.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision in this case underscores the importance of procedural correctness in appellate proceedings. The High Court overstepped its jurisdiction by setting aside the original trial court decree when it should have only reviewed the First Appellate Court’s decision on the delay. The Supreme Court has clarified the correct procedure, ensuring that the matter is sent back to the First Appellate Court for a decision on the condonation of delay and subsequently on the merits of the case, if the delay is condoned. This judgment serves as a reminder for High Courts to adhere to the proper legal framework and not to exceed their appellate jurisdiction.

Source: Mamtaz & Ors. vs. Gulsuma Alias Kulusuma