LEGAL ISSUE: Whether possession obtained through an ex-parte decree can be sustained if the decree is subsequently set aside.
CASE TYPE: Civil
Case Name: Om Prakash Ram vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.
Judgment Date: April 15, 2019
Date of the Judgment: April 15, 2019
Citation: (2019) INSC 370
Judges: N.V. Ramana, J. and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J. The judgment was authored by Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, J.
Can a person be dispossessed from their property based on an ex-parte decree if that decree is later set aside? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a civil appeal, focusing on the principle that orders based on a subsequently overturned decree cannot stand. This case highlights the importance of due process and the consequences of suppressing material facts in legal proceedings. The Supreme Court bench comprised Justices N.V. Ramana and Mohan M. Shantanagoudar, with the judgment authored by Justice Shantanagoudar.
Case Background
The dispute revolves around a property initially contested in 1970 when Brhamdeo Narayan, the father of the fifth respondent, filed a suit (Title Suit No. 105/1970) seeking declaration of title, restoration of possession, and eviction of the appellant’s predecessor. This suit was dismissed on June 9, 1971.
Seventeen years later, in 1988, Brhamdeo Narayan filed another suit (later renumbered as Title Suit No. 32/1993) against the appellant and State Authorities, seeking a declaration and injunction regarding the same property. Following Brhamdeo Narayan’s death, his legal representatives, including the fifth respondent, were substituted into the suit. This suit was decreed ex-parte on June 6, 1994, against the appellant without proper notice.
The appellant, upon learning of the ex-parte decree, filed Miscellaneous Case No. 6/1999 on November 21, 1994, to set it aside. This case was allowed on May 21, 2003, with the court finding that the appellant had not been served notice in the original Title Suit No. 32/1993. Consequently, the ex-parte decree was set aside, and the title suit was restored. The title suit was subsequently renumbered as Title Suit No. 01/2003 and was dismissed on August 29, 2006.
Meanwhile, based on the ex-parte decree of June 6, 1994, the fifth respondent initiated three parallel proceedings: a demarcation case, a writ petition, and a contempt petition.
First, Demarcation Case No. 49/1997 was filed, seeking demarcation of the disputed property (R.S. Plot No. 313). The appellant was not made a party to this case, which was allowed on January 8, 1998, directing demarcation and submission of a report.
As the demarcation order was not implemented, the fifth respondent filed CWJC No. 3221/2003 in the High Court of Judicature at Patna, seeking its implementation. Again, the appellant was not made a party. The High Court allowed the writ petition on January 10, 2008, directing implementation of the demarcation order.
Finally, the fifth respondent filed Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 5323/2011, a contempt petition, before the High Court of Judicature at Patna. On December 16, 2015, the court directed the District Magistrate and Superintendent of Police, Gaya, to implement the demarcation order and the order in CWJC No. 3221/2003. Consequently, the appellant was dispossessed.
The appellant, after gaining knowledge of the order dated January 10, 2008, filed Civil Review No. 21/2011 in CWJC No. 3221/2003, highlighting the suppression of facts by the fifth respondent. However, this review was dismissed.
The appellant was dispossessed based on these orders, all of which stemmed from the ex-parte decree of June 6, 1994, which had already been set aside.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 1970 | Brhamdeo Narayan files Title Suit No. 105/1970, which was dismissed on 09.06.1971. |
| 1988 | Brhamdeo Narayan files another suit, later renumbered as Title Suit No. 32/1993. |
| 06.06.1994 | Ex-parte decree passed against the appellant in Title Suit No. 32/1993. |
| 21.11.1994 | Appellant files Miscellaneous Case No. 6/1999 to set aside the ex-parte decree. |
| 08.01.1998 | Demarcation Case No. 49/1997 allowed. |
| 21.05.2003 | Miscellaneous Case No. 6/1999 allowed, setting aside the ex-parte decree. |
| 10.01.2008 | High Court allows CWJC No. 3221/2003, directing implementation of demarcation order. |
| 29.08.2006 | Title Suit No. 01/2003 dismissed. |
| 16.12.2015 | High Court directs implementation of demarcation order in Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 5323/2011. |
| 29.03.2016 | High Court dismisses CWJC No. 1806/2016 filed by the appellant. |
| 06.06.2016 | Division Bench partly confirms the order of the High Court in LPA No. 831/2016. |
| 20.11.2017 | Civil Review No. 563/2016 dismissed. |
Course of Proceedings
The initial Title Suit No. 105/1970 filed by Brhamdeo Narayan was dismissed on 09.06.1971. Subsequently, another suit (Title Suit No. 32/1993) was filed by the same person, which was decreed ex-parte against the appellant on 06.06.1994. The appellant filed Miscellaneous Case No. 6/1999 to set aside this ex-parte decree, which was allowed on 21.05.2003, restoring the title suit. The title suit was later dismissed on 29.08.2006.
Based on the ex-parte decree, the fifth respondent initiated Demarcation Case No. 49/1997, which was allowed on 08.01.1998. As this order was not implemented, the fifth respondent filed CWJC No. 3221/2003 in the High Court, which was allowed on 10.01.2008. A contempt petition, Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 5323/2011, was then filed, leading to a direction on 16.12.2015 to implement the demarcation order.
The appellant, after learning of these orders, filed CWJC No. 1806/2016 to recall the orders passed in CWJC No. 3221/2003 and Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 5323/2011. This writ petition was dismissed by the High Court on 29.03.2016, with costs. The Division Bench partly confirmed this order in LPA No. 831/2016, setting aside the costs, and the review petition was also dismissed.
Legal Framework
The judgment primarily revolves around the principle that an order based on a decree that is subsequently set aside cannot stand. There are no specific sections of any statute cited in the judgment.
Arguments
The appellant argued that the entire process of demarcation and dispossession was based on the ex-parte decree dated 06.06.1994 in Title Suit No. 32/1993, which was set aside on 21.05.2003 in Miscellaneous Case No. 6/1999. The appellant contended that the fifth respondent suppressed the fact that the ex-parte decree was under challenge and that the appellant was not made a party in any of the subsequent proceedings.
The appellant further argued that since the ex-parte decree was set aside and the underlying suit (Title Suit No. 01/2003) was dismissed, all consequential orders based on the ex-parte decree should also be set aside, and possession of the property should be restored to him.
The fifth respondent, on the other hand, argued that the demarcation and subsequent orders were valid and should be upheld.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s Submission |
|
| Fifth Respondent’s Submission |
|
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court did not explicitly frame specific issues. However, the core issue was whether the orders passed in the demarcation case, writ petition, and contempt petition, all based on an ex-parte decree that was subsequently set aside, could be sustained.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Reason |
|---|---|---|
| Whether orders based on an ex-parte decree, which was later set aside, are valid? | The orders are not valid and are liable to be set aside. | The court reasoned that since the foundation of these orders (the ex-parte decree) was removed, all consequential orders must also fall. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court did not rely on any specific cases or books in this judgment. The core of the judgment is based on the principle that an order based on a decree that is subsequently set aside cannot stand.
| Authority | How it was used |
|---|---|
| N/A | N/A |
Judgment
| Submission | Court’s Treatment |
|---|---|
| Appellant’s submission that the orders based on the ex-parte decree should be set aside. | The court accepted this submission, holding that the orders were liable to be set aside since they were based on an ex-parte decree that was subsequently set aside. |
| Appellant’s submission that possession should be restored. | The court accepted this submission and held that the appellant should be restored possession. |
| Fifth Respondent’s submission that the orders were valid. | The court rejected this submission, holding that the orders were invalid because their foundation was removed when the ex-parte decree was set aside. |
The Court held that the orders passed in Demarcation Case No. 49/1997, CWJC No. 3221/2003, and Miscellaneous Jurisdiction Case No. 5323/2011 were all based on the ex-parte decree dated 06.06.1994, which was set aside. Therefore, these orders were also liable to be set aside.
The court emphasized that the fifth respondent had suppressed the fact that the ex-parte decree was under challenge. The court also noted that the appellant was not made a party to any of the subsequent proceedings.
The court stated that since the ex-parte decree was set aside and the underlying suit was dismissed, the appellant was entitled to the restoration of possession.
“It is evident that the possession of the property in question needs to be restored in favour of the appellant, inasmuch as he was dispossessed based on the exparte decree dated 06.06.1994 which ultimately came to be set aside, and as the underlying suit (viz. Title Suit No. 01/2003) itself came to be dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2006, as mentioned supra.”
The Court allowed the appeals and directed that it is open to the appellant to get back possession of the property in accordance with law in terms of this judgment.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court’s decision was primarily influenced by the principle that an order based on a decree that is subsequently set aside cannot stand. The Court emphasized the importance of due process and the need to ensure that orders are based on a valid legal foundation. The suppression of material facts by the fifth respondent and the fact that the appellant was not made a party to the proceedings also weighed heavily in the Court’s decision.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Invalidity of orders based on set-aside decree | 50% |
| Suppression of material facts | 30% |
| Lack of due process | 20% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 30% |
| Law | 70% |
Logical Reasoning
Key Takeaways
- Orders based on a decree that is subsequently set aside are invalid.
- Suppression of material facts in legal proceedings can lead to adverse outcomes.
- Due process must be followed in all legal proceedings.
- A person dispossessed based on an invalid order is entitled to the restoration of possession.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that it is open to the appellant to get back possession of the property in accordance with law in terms of this judgment.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that any order or action taken based on an ex-parte decree, which is subsequently set aside, is invalid and cannot be sustained. This reinforces the principle that a legal order must have a valid foundation and that orders based on a reversed decree are void. This judgment does not change any previous position of law but reinforces the existing legal principle.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court’s judgment in Om Prakash Ram vs. The State of Bihar & Ors. underscores the critical principle that orders based on a decree that is subsequently set aside are invalid. The Court restored possession of the property to the appellant, emphasizing that the entire process of demarcation and dispossession was based on an ex-parte decree that had been overturned. This case serves as a reminder of the importance of due process, the consequences of suppressing material facts, and the need for a valid legal foundation for any legal action.
Category
Parent Category: Civil Law
Child Category: Ex-parte Decree
Child Category: Restoration of Possession
Child Category: Due Process
Parent Category: Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Child Category: Order IX, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
FAQ
Q: What is an ex-parte decree?
A: An ex-parte decree is a court order passed against a defendant who does not appear in court.
Q: What happens if an ex-parte decree is set aside?
A: If an ex-parte decree is set aside, it means the decree is no longer valid, and any actions taken based on that decree are also invalid.
Q: Can a person be dispossessed based on an ex-parte decree?
A: Yes, a person can be dispossessed based on an ex-parte decree, but if the decree is subsequently set aside, the dispossession is also invalid and the person is entitled to restoration of possession.
Q: What does it mean to suppress material facts in a legal proceeding?
A: Suppressing material facts means intentionally hiding or not disclosing important information that could affect the outcome of a legal case.
Q: What is the significance of this judgment?
A: This judgment reinforces the principle that legal orders must have a valid foundation and that orders based on a reversed decree are void. It also highlights the importance of due process and honesty in legal proceedings.