In a significant legal battle over a land dispute, the High Court has overturned the Trial Court’s decision in a case involving valuable property. The judgement by the Supreme Court of India sheds light on the complexities of the legal system and emphasizes the importance of fair adjudication. Stay tuned for more insights on this impactful ruling.
Facts
- The Suit was originally filed by the plaintiff for specific relief and mandatory injunction.
- The case got transferred to another Court without notice to the petitioner.
- The Suit was decreed ex-parte as the petitioner failed to appear.
- The petitioner, as the defendant, filed an application for condonation of delay on 02.12.2015.
- The plaintiff filed ex-parte evidence in the form of an affidavit during the proceedings.
- The plaintiff claims to have appeared in court on 17.11.2015 and discovered the judgment was rendered on 09.10.2014.
- The appellant (defendant) was served notice of execution proceedings through a messenger on 27.03.2015.
- The appellant’s claim of being unaware of the decree until 17.11.2015 was contradicted by the execution notice.
- The disputed agreement in the case is dated 18.04.2012 and involves valuable property.
- The Trial Court accepted the appellant’s claim that he only became aware of the Suit in June 2014.
- The appellant attempted to engage an advocate, but the suit proceeded ex-parte leading to the rejection of the application.
- The Trial Court issued further summons without informing the appellant, leading to the case being posted to 15.09.2014.
- By Judgment dated 09.10.2014, Civil Judge Senior Division, Dehradun decreed the Suit.
Also Read: Landmark Supreme Court Judgment on Dowry Death Allegations
Arguments
- The High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital allowed the Revision Petition filed by the respondent under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
- The High Court set aside the Order passed by the Trial Court under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, which had set aside the ex parte decree obtained by the respondent.
- The appeal by Special Leave is directed against the Order of the High Court.
- Appellant was given ample opportunity to contest the matter but did not do so
- The property in question was conveyed to the respondent through a sale deed executed by court orders
- The appellant was served notice by the executing court
- The cause of justice requires adjudication to be done on merits and not terminated by default
Also Read: Interpretation of Proviso in Rule 266(3): Legal Analysis in the Case of Teacher Recruitment
Analysis
- The appellant claimed to have contacted his counsel but received an unsatisfactory reply.
- He stated that he only came to know about the judgement date from the plaintiff.
- There was an alleged lack of communication between the appellant and his counsel regarding the case status.
- The appellant’s argument implies a lack of proper legal representation or communication in the case.
- The appellant claims the building in question is their residential house and not rented out.
- Specific relief is a discretionary relief.
- The appellant is willing to deposit the entire amount spent by the respondent towards executing the sale deed.
- In the interest of justice, the appellant should be allowed to contest the case with certain terms put in place.
- The case must be directed to be disposed of within a specified time limit.
Also Read: Landmark Judgment: The Kerosene Incident Case
Decision
- The appellant is directed to deposit a total amount of Rs.67,400 within one month, consisting of Rs.57,400 for stamp duty paid by the respondent and Rs.10,000 for registration expenses.
- Another amount of Rs.92,000 deposited by the respondent towards the balance sale consideration can be withdrawn.
- Failure to deposit the specified amounts within the given timeframe will result in the dismissal of the appeal.
- An additional sum of Rs.50,000 is to be deposited by the appellant as costs to be paid to the respondents.
Case Title: ROBIN THAPA Vs. ROHIT DORA
Case Number: C.A. No.-004507-004507 / 2019
