By way of background, the respondent Prakash Chand Goel had filed a civil Delhi High Court against Garment Craft for the recovery of ₹81 lakh. However, Garment Craft stated that Goel in fact owed him ₹88 lakh due to faulty goods. After Goel led evidence, Garment Craft was due to lead evidence but the sole proprietor of the firm got embroiled in an unconnected case which led him to be jailed.
Since no one appeared for the firm, the Joint Registrar of the High Court directed the closure of defence evidence. On raising the plea of pecuniary jurisdiction, the suit was transferred to the court of District Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi.
Later, on an application, the appellant firm was called to lead evidence but no one from appellant’s side appeared purportedly because, the proprietor was in jail.
On November 8 2016, an ex-parte judgment was passed by the Tis Hazari court decreeing the suit filed by the respondent
After the sole proprietor was released from jail in 2017, he filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC before the Tis Hazari court for setting aside the ex-parte decree. This was allowed by an order dated July 24, 2018, and the case was restored to its original number, and listed for defence evidence.
Goel then preferred a miscellaneous petition under Article 227 of the Constitution before the High Court against the order setting aside the ex-parte decree.
This was allowed by the High Court primarily for the reason that the counsel for the appellant had applied and taken a certified copy of the ex-parte judgment dated November 8, 2016, in December that year, which showed that the appellant was represented by his counsel even at that stage.
The said order was in appeal before the Supreme Court.
Source: Barandbench
