Ex-Parte reversal

Supreme Court of India
PETITIONER:SANGRAM SINGH
Vs.
RESPONDENT:ELECTION TRIBUNAL, KOTAH,BHUREY LAL BAYA.

DATE OF JUDGMENT:22/03/1955

BENCH:BOSE VIVIAN,JAGANNADHADAS B,SINHA BHUVNESHWAR P.

CITATION: 1955 AIR 425 1955 SCR (2) 1

ACT:
Representation of the People Act (XLIII) of 1951, section 105 Effect of-Finality and conclusiveness of orders of Election Tribunals Article 136 of Constitution Jurisdiction of Supreme Court-Jurisdiction and powers of High Courts under Article
226 of the Constituttion-Whether in any way affected-Writ of Certiorari-Principles governing grant of-Laws of procedure-
Grounded on natural justice-Designed to promote justice-Representation of the People Act of 1951, subsection (2) of section 90-Procedure for trial of Election petitions-Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, sections 27, 30 and 32-Distinction between ‘Penalty” for non-appearance of parties to suit and con-sequences flowing from non-appearance in response to summons-Code
of Civil Procedure, 1908, Order 5, rules I and 5 and Order 8, rules I and 14, Order 9, rules 6(1)(a)-2,7,12 and 13-Order 15, rule 3Order 17, rules 1(1) and 2-Trial of suits-First hearing and adjourned hearing-Distinction-Consequences of non-appearance-Ex parte hearing and ex parte order-Principles governing discretion of Courts-Adjournment of hearing-Convenience of witnesses.

HEADNOTE:
Notwithstanding the provision in section 105 of the Representation of the People Act (Act XLIII) of 1951 that every order of an Election Tribunal made under the Act shall be final and conclusive, the High Court and the Supreme Court have unfettered jurisdiction to examine whether the tribunal, in the exercise of its undoubted jurisdiction, has acted legally or otherwise, This jurisdiction cannot be taken away by a legislative device that purports to confer power on a tribunal to act illegally. The legality of an act or conclusion is something that exists outside and apart from the decision of an inferior tribunal. It is a part of the law of the land which cannot be finally determined or altered by any tribunal of limited jurisdiction. The High Courts and the Supreme Court alone can determine what the law of the land is vis-a-vis all other Courts and tribunals and they alone can pronounce with authority and finality on what is legal and what is not. All that an inferior tribunal can do is to reach a tentative conclusion which is subject to review under Articles 226 and 136 of the Constitution. The jurisdiction of the High Courts under Article 226, with that of the Supreme Court above them, re-main it-, fullest extent despite section 105 of the Representation of the People Act. Limitations on the exercise of, such jurisdiction can only be imposed by the Constitution.

The powers of the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution are discretionary and, though no limits can be placed upon that discretion, it must be exercised along recognised lines and not arbitrarily. In the exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Courts should not act as Courts of Appeal or revision to correct mere errors of law which do not occasion injustice in a broad and general sense. It is a sound exercise of discretion to bear in mind the
policy of the legislature to have disputes about special rights, as in election cases, decided as speedily as may be. The High Courts should not therefore entertain petitions for prerogative writs lightly in this class of case.

The appellant filed an election petition under section 100 of the Representation of the People -Act. He appeared on the first and ‘Subsequent hearing at Kotah. The proceedings were then adjourned for certain hearings at Udaipur. The appellant did not appear on the first three hearings at that place so the tribunal proceeded ex parte. His counsel appeared on the fourth hearing but was not allowed to take any further part in the proceedings because no good cause was shown for the earlier non-appearance and so the tribunal refused to set aside its “ex parte order”.Held,

(1) Under section 90(2) of the Representation of the People Act the procedure for the trial of election petitions is to be, as near as may be, the same as in the trial of suits under the Civil Procedure Code;

(2) under the Civil Procedure Code there is no such thing as an ex parte order for non-appearance” which precludes further appearance at an adjourned hearing until the Order is set aside. If a party appears at an adjourned hearing the court has a discretion (which must be exercised judicially) either to allow him to appear oil such terms as it thinks fit, or to disallow further appearance; but

(3) if he is allowed to appear then, unless good cause is shown under Order 9, rule 7 for the earlier non-appearance the proceedings must continue from the stage at which the later appearance is entered and the party so appearing cannot be relegated to the position he would have occupied if he had appeared at the earlier hearing or hearings; also,

(4) in exercising its discretion the court must see that justice is done to all concerned, including the witnesses Rule 6

(1) (a) of Order 9 of the Civil Procedure Code is confined to the first hearing of the suit and does not apply, per se to subsequent hearings. 0. 9, r. 7 gives a party a right to be relegated to the position he would have occupied if he had appeared at the earlier hearing or hearings if he shows good cause. It does not per se prevent further appearance when no good cause is shown. O. 17, r. 2 applies at the adjourned hearing and there, the Court is given a wide discretion to make such order as it thinks fit.
A code of procedure is a body of law designed to facilitate justice and further its ends, and should not be treated as an enactment providing for punishments and penalties. The laws of procedure are grounded on the principle of natural justice which requires that men should not be condemned unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property should not continue in their absence and that they should not be precluded from participating in them. Subject to clearly defined exceptions the laws of procedure should be construed wherever reasonably possible, in the light of that principle. The court is invested with the widest possible discretion to see that justice is done to all concerned. No hard and fast rule can be laid down; and the court in the exercise of its judicial discretion will have, in a given case, to determine what consequences are to follow from non-appearance. An order awarding costs, or an adjournment, or the consideration of the written statement and the framing of the issues on the spot, can in some cases meet the ends of justice. In other cases, more drastic action may be called for.

By “ends of justice” is meant not only justice to the parties but also to witnesses and others who may be inconvenienced.

The convenience of the witnesses, which deserves the greatest consideration, is ordinarily lost sight of in this class of case. Justice strongly. demands that this unfortunate section of the general public com-pelled to discharge public duties, usually at loss and inconvenience to themselves should not be ignored in the over-all picture of what will best serve the ends of justice; and it may well be a sound exercise of discretion in a particular case to refuse an adjournment and permit the plaintiff to examine the witnesses present and not allow the defendant to cross-examine them. But broadly speaking,after all the various factors have been taken into consideration and carefully weighed, the endeavour should be to avoid snap decisions and to afford the parties a real opportunity of fighting out their cases fairly squarely.

The Court must in every case exercise the discretion given to it. Its hands are not tied by a so-called “ex parts order”, and, if it thinks they are tied by rule 7 of Order 9 of the Code, then it is not exercising the discretion which the law says it should, and in a given case interference may be called for.

Held, that the Election Tribunal did not exercise the discretion given to it by law because of a misapprehension that it had none. It was directed to do so now and to proceed with the further hearing of the case in accordance with law.

Hari Vishnu v. Ahmed Ishaque ([1955] 1 S.C.R. 1104), Darga Shankar Mehta v. Thakur Raghuraj Singh ([1955] 1 S.C.R.267), and Raj Krushna Bose v. Binod Kanungo ([1954] S.C.R.913, 918), applied. Hariram v. Pribhdas (A.I.R. 1945 Sind 98, 102), distinguished. Sewaram v. Misrimal (A.I.R. 1952 Raj. 12, 14), overruled. Venkatasubbiah v. Lakshminarasimham (A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 1274), approved Balakrishna Udayar v.Vasudeva Ayyar (I.L.R. 40 Mad, 793),T. M. Barret v. African Products Ltd. (A.I.R. 1928 P.C.261, 262) and Sahibzada Zeinitlabdin Khan v. Sahibzada Ahmed Baza Khan (5 I.A. 233, 236), applied.Case remitted to, the Tribunal:

JUDGMENT:
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 214 of 1954.
Appeal under Article 133 (1) (c) of the Constitution of India from the Judgment and Order dated the 17th July 1953 of the, High Court of Rajasthan (Bapna and Ranawat JJ.) in Civil Writ Application No. 128 of 1953.
R. K. Rastogi and Ganpat Rai, for the appellant.
R. C. Prasad, for S. L. Chhibber, for respondent No. 2.
1955. March 22. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BOSE J.-The second respondent Bhurey Lal filed an election petition under section 100 of the Representation of the People Act against the appellant Sangram Singh and two others for setting aside Sangram Singh’s election.

The proceedings commenced at Kotah and after some hearings the Tribunal made an order on 11-12-1952 that the further sittings would be at Udaipur from the 16th to the 21st March, 1953. It was discovered later that the 16th was a public holiday, so on 5-1-1953 the dates were changed to “from the 17th March onwards” and the parties were duly notified.

On the 17th the appellant did not appear nor did any of the three counsel whom he had engaged, so the Tribunal proceeded ex parte after waiting till 1-15 P.m.
The Tribunal examined Bhurey Lal and two witnesses on the 17th, five more witnesses on the 18th and on the 19th the case was adjourned till the 20th.
On the 20th one of the appellant’s three counsel, Mr, Bharat
Raj, appeared but was not allowed to
take any part in the proceedings because the Tribunal said
that it was proceeding ex parte at that stage. Three more
witnesses were then examined.
On the following day, the 21st, the appellant made an
application asking that the ex parte proceedings be set
aside and asking that he be allowed to cross-examine those
of Bhurey Lal’s witnesses whose evidence had already been
recorded.
The Tribunal heard arguments and passed an order the same
day rejecting the application on the ground that the
appellant had
“failed to satisfy ourselves that there was -any just or
unavoidable reason preventing the appearance of respondent
No. 1 himself or of any of his three learned advocates
between the 17th and the 19th of March, 1953”,
and it added-
“at all events, when para 10 of the affidavit makes it clear
that Shri Bharatraj had already received instructions to
appear on 17-3-1953 there was nothing to justify his non-
appearance on the 18th and 19th of March, 1953, if not, on
the 17th as well”.
The appellant thereupon filed a writ petition under article
226 of the Constitution in the High Court of Rajasthan and
further proceedings before the Tribunal were stayed.
The High Court rejected the petition on 17-7-1953 on two
grounds-
(1) “In the first -place, the Tribunal was the authority to
decide whether the reasons were sufficient or otherwise and
the fact that the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the
reasons set forth by counsel for the petitioner were
insufficient cannot be challenged in a petition of this
nature” and
(2) “On the merits also, we feel no hesitation in holding
that counsel for the petitioner were grossly negligent in
not appearing on the date which had been fixed for hearing,
more than two months previously”.
Five months later, on 16-12-1953, the High Court granted a
certificate under article 133(1) (C) of the Constitution for
leave to appeal to this Court,
The only question before the High Court was whether the
Tribunal was right in refusing to allow the appellant’s
counsel to appear and take part in the proceedings on and
after the 20th of March, 1953, and the first question that
we have to decide is whether that is sufficient ground to
give the High Court jurisdiction to entertain a writ
petition under article 226 of the Constitution. That, in
our opinion, is no longer res integra. The question was
settled by a Bench of seven Judges of this Court in Hari
Vishnu v. Ahmad Ishaque(1) in these terms:
“Certiorari will also be issued when the Court or Tribunal
acts illegally in the exercise of its undoubted
jurisdiction, as when it decides without giving an op-
portunity to the parties to be heard, or violates the
principles of natural justice”.
That is exactly the position here.
It was urged that that cannot be so in election matters
because of section 105 of the Representation of the People
Act of 1951 (Act XLIII of 1951), a section which was not
considered in the earlier case. It runs thus:
“Every order of the Tribunal made under this Act shall be
final and conclusive”.
It was argued that neither the High Court nor the Supreme
Court can itself transgress the law in trying to set right
what it considers is an error of law on the part of the
Court or Tribunal whose records are under consideration. It
was submitted that the legislature intended the decisions of
these tribunals to be final on all matters, whether of fact
or of law, accordingly, they cannot be said to commit an
error of law when, acting within the ambit of their
jurisdiction, they decide and lay down what the law is, for
in that sphere their decisions are absolute, as absolute as
the decisions of the Supreme Court in its own sphere.
Therefore,’it was said, the only question that is left open
for examination under article 226 in the case of an Election
Tribunal is whether it acted within the scope of its
jurisdiction.
(1) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1104,1121,
But this, also, is no longer open to question. The point
has been decided by three Constitution Benches of this
Court. In Hari Vishnu v. Ahmad Ishaque(1) the effect of
section 105 of the Representation of the People Act was not
considered, but the Court laid down in general terms that
the jurisdiction under article 226 having been conferred by
the Constitution, limitations cannot be placed on it except
by the Constitution itself: see pages 238 and 242. Section
105 was, however, considered in Durga Shankar Mehta v.
Raghuraj Singh(1) and it was held that that section cannot
cut down or affect the overriding powers of this Court under
article 136. The same rule was applied to article 226 in
Rai Krushna Bose v. Binod Kanungo and others(1) and it was
decided that section 105 cannot take away or whittle down
the powers of the High Court under article 226. Following
those decisions we hold that the jurisdiction of the High
Court under article 226 is not taken away or curtailed by
section 105.
The jurisdiction which articles 226 and 136 confer entitles
the High Courts and this Court to examine the decisions of
all Tribunals to see whether they have acted illegally.
That jurisdiction cannot be taken away by a legislative
device that purports to confer power on a tribunal to act
illegally by enacting a statute that its illegal acts shall
become legal the moment the tribunal chooses to say they are
legal. The legality of an act or conclusion is something
that exists outside and apart. from the decision of an in-
ferior tribunal. It is a part of the law of the land which
cannot be finally deter-mined or altered by any tribunal of
limited jurisdiction. The High Courts and the Supreme Court
alone can determine what the law of the land is vis-a-vis
all other courts and tribunals and they alone can pronounce
with authority and finality on what is legal and what is
not. All that an inferior tribunal can do is to reach a
tentative conclusion which is subject to review under
articles 226 and 136. Therefore, the jurisdiction of the
High
(1) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 1104, 1121. (2) [1955] 1 S.C.R. 267.
(3) 1954 S.C.R. 913, 918.
Courts under article 226 with that of the Supreme Court
above them remains to its fullest extent despite section
105.
That, however, is not to say that the jurisdiction will be
exercised whenever there is an error of law. The High
Courts do not, and should not, act as Courts of appeal under
article 226. Their powers are purely discretionary and
though no limits can be placed upon that discretion it must
be exercised along recognised lines and not arbitrarily; and
one of the limitations imposed by the Courts on, themselves
is that they will not exercise jurisdiction in this class of
case unless substantial injustice has ensued, or is likely
to ensue. They will not allow themselves to be turned into
Courts of appeal or revision to set right mere errors of law
which do not occasion injustice in a broad and general
sense, for, though no legislature can impose limitations on
these constitutional powers it is a sound exercise of
discretion to bear in mind the policy of the legislature to
have disputes about these special rights decided as speedily
as may be. Therefore, writ petitions should not be lightly
entertained in this class of case.
We now turn to the decision of the Tribunal. The procedure
of these tribunals is governed by section 90 of the Act.
The portion of the section that is relevant here is sub-
section (2) which is in these terms:
“Subject to the provisions of this Act and of any rules made
thereunder, every election petition shall be tried by the
Tribunal, as nearly as may be, in accordance with the
procedure applicable under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
(Act V of 1908) to the trial of suits”.
We must therefore direct our attention to that portion of
the Civil Procedure Code that deals with the trial of suits.
Now a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is
procedure, something designed to facilitate justice and
further its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and
penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too
technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for
reasonable elasticity of inter-
pretation should therefore be guarded against (provided
always that justice is done to both sides) lest the very
means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to
frustrate it.
Next, there must be ever present to the mind the fact that
our laws of procedure are grounded on a principle of natural
justice which requires that men should not be condemned
unheard, that decisions should not be reached behind their
backs, that proceedings that affect their lives and property
should not continue in their absence and that they should
not be precluded from participating in them. Of course,
there must be exceptions and where they are clearly defined
they must be given effect to. But taken by and large, and
subject to that proviso, our laws of procedure should be
construed, wherever that is reasonably possible, in the
light of that principle.
The existence of such a principle has been doubted, and in
any event was condemned as unworkable and impractical by
O’Sullivan, J. in Hariram v. Pribhdas(1). He regarded it as
an indeterminate term “liable to cause misconception” and
his views were shared by Wanchoo, C. J. and Bapna, J. in
Rajasthan: Sewa Ram v. Misrimal(1). But that a law of
natural justice exists in the sense that a party must be
heard in a Court of law, or at any rate be afforded an
opportunity to appear and defend himself, unless there is
express provision to the contrary, is, we think, beyond
dispute. See the observations of the Privy Council in
Balakrighna Udayar v. Vasudeva Ayyar(3), and especially in
T. M. Barret v. African Products Ltd.(1) where Lord
Buckmaaster said “Do forms or procedure should ever be
permitted to exclude the presentation of a litigant’s
defence”. Also Hari Vishnu’s case which we have just
quoted.
In our opinion, Wallace, J. was right in VenkataSubbiah v.
Lakshminarassimham(5) in holding that “One cardinal
principle to be observed in trials by a Court obviously is
that a party has a right to
(1) A.I.R 1945 Sind 98,102
(2) A.I.R. 1952 Raj. 12,14.
(3) A.I.R. 40 Mad. 793, 800
(4) A.I.R. 1928 P.C. 261, 262.
(5) A.I.R. 1925 Mad. 1274.2
appear and plead his cause on all occasions when that cause
comes on for hearing”, and that “It follows that a party
should not be deprived of that right and in fact the Court
has no option to refuse that right, unless the Code of Civil
Procedure deprives him of it”.
Let us now examine that Code; and first, we will turn to the
body of the Code. Section 27 provides that
“Where a suit has been duly instituted, a summons may be
issued to the defendant to appear and answer the claim”.
Section 30 gives the Court power to
“(b) issue summonses to persons whose attendance is required
either to give evidence or to produce documents or such
other objects as aforesaid”.
Then come the penalties for default. They are set out in
section 32 but they are confined to cases in which a summons
has been issued under section 30. There is no penalty for a
refusal or an omission to appear in response to a summons
under section 27. It is true certain consequences will
follow if a defendant does not appear and, popularly
speaking, those consequences may be regarded as the penalty
for nonappearance, but they are not penalties in the true
sense of the term. They are not punishments which the Court
is authorised to administer for disregard of its orders.
The antithesis that section 32 draws between section 27 and
section 30 is that an omission to appear in response to a
summons under section 27 carries no penalty in the strict
sense, while disregard of a summons under section 30 may
entail punishment. The spirit of this distinction must be
carried over to the First Schedule. We deprecate the
tendency of some Judges to think in terms of punishment and
penalties properly so called when they should instead be
thinking of compensation and the avoidance of injustice to
both sides.
We turn next to the Rules in the First Schedule. It is
relevant to note that the Rules draw a distinction between
the first hearing and subsequent hearings,and that the first hearing can be either (a) for settlement
of issues only., or (b) for final disposal of the suit.
First, there is Order V. rule 1:
“………………………….. a summons may be issued to
the defendant to appear and answer the claim on a. day to be
therein specified”.
This summons must state whether the hearing is to be for
settlement of issues only or for final hearing (rule 5). If
it is for final hearing, then (rule 8):
“it shall also direct the defendant to produce, on the day
fixed for his appearance, all witnesses upon whose evidence
he intends to rely in support of his case”.
Then comes Order VIII, rule 1 which expressly speaks of “the
first hearing”. Order IX follows and is headed “Appearance
of parties and consequence of non-appearance”.
Now the word “consequence” as opposed to the word “penalty”
used in section 32 is significant. It emphasises the
antithesis to which we have already drawn attention. So
also in rule 12 the marginal note is “Consequence of non-
attendance” and the body of the rule states that the party
who does not appear and cannot show sufficient cause
“shall be subject to all the provisions of the foregoing
rules applicable to plaintiffs and defendants, respectively,
who do not appear”.
The use of the word “penalty” is scrupulously avoided.
Our attention was drawn to rule 6(2) and it was argued that
Order IX does contemplate the imposition of penalties. But
we do not read this portion of the rule in that light. All
that the plaintiff has to do here is to pay the costs
occasioned by the postponement which in practice usually
means the cost of a fresh summons and the diet money and so
forth for such of the witnesses as are present; and these
costs the plaintiff must pay irrespective of the result.
Rule I of Order IX starts by saying-
“On the day fixed in the summons for the defendant to appear
and answer………………………………………….”
and the rest of the rules in that Order are consequential on
that. This is emphasised by the use of the word
“postponement” in rule 6 (1)(c), of “adjournment” in rule 7
and of “adjournment” in rule 1. Therefore, we reach the
position that Order IX, rule 6 (1) (a), which is the rule
relied on, is confined to the first hearing of the suit and
does not per se apply to subsequent hearings: see Sahibzada
Zeinulabdin Khan v. Sahibzada Ahmed Raza Khan(1).
Now to analyse rule 6 and examine its bearing on the first
hearing. When the plaintiff appears and the defendant does
not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, if it is
proved that the summons was duly served-
“(a)……………………………………………. the
Court may proceed ex parte”.
The whole question is, what do these words mean? Judicial
opinion is sharply divided about this. On the one side is
the view propounded by Wallace, J. in Venkatasubbiah v.
Lakshminarasimham(2) that ex parte merely means in the
absence of the other party, and on the other side is the
view of O’Sullivan, J., in Hariram v. Pribhdas(3) that it
means that the Court is at liberty to proceed without the
defendant till the termination of the proceedings unless the
defendant shows good cause for his non-appearance. The re-
maining decisions, and there are many of them, take one or
the other of those two views.
In our opinion, Wallace, J. and the other Judges who adopt
the same line of thought, are right. As we have already
observed, our laws of procedure are based on the principle
that, as far as possible, no proceeding in a Court of law
should be conducted to the detriment of a person in his
absence. There are of course exceptions, and this is one of
them. When the defendant has been served and has been
afforded an opportunity of appearing, then, if he does not
appear, the Court may proceed in his absence. But, be it
noted, the Court is not directed to make an ex
(1) 5 I.A. 233, 236.
(2) A,I.R. 1925 Mad. 1274.
(3) A.I.R. 1945 Sind 98, 102.
parte order. Of course the fact that it is proceeding ex
parte will be recorded in the minutes of its proceedings but
that is merely a statement of the fact and is not an order
made against the defendant in the sense of an ex parte
decree or other ex parte order which the Court is authorised
to make. All that rule 6 (1) (a) does is to remove a bar
and no more. It merely authorises the Court to do that
which it could not have done without this authority, namely
to proceed in the absence of one of the parties. The
contrast in language between rules 7 and 13 emphasises this.
Now, as we have seen, the first hearing is either for the
settlement of issues or for final hearing. If it is only
for the settlement of issues, then the Court cannot pass an
ex parte decree on that date because of the proviso to Order
XV, rule 3(1) which provides that that can only. be done
when
“the parties or their pleaders are present and none of them
objects”.
On the other hand, if it is for final hearing, an ex parte
decree can be passed, and if it is passed, then Order IX,
rule 13 comes into play and before the decree is set aside
the Court is required to make an order to set it aside.
Contrast this with rule 7 which does not require the setting
aside of what is commonly, though erroneously, known as “the
ex parte order”. No order is contemplated by the Code and
therefore no order to set aside the order is contemplated
either. But a decree is a command or order of the Court and
so can only be set aside by another order made and recorded
with due formality.
Then comes rule 7 which provides that if at an adjourned
hearing the defendant appears and shows good cause for his
“previous non-appearance”, he can be heard in answer to the
suit
“as if he had appeared on the day fixed for his appearance”.
This cannot be read to mean, as it has been by some learned
Judges, that he cannot be allowed to appear at all if he
does not show good cause. All it means is that he cannot be
relegated to the position he would have occupied if he had
appeared,
We turn next to the adjourned hearing. That is dealt with
in Order XVII. Rule I (1) empowers the Court to adjourn the
hearing and whenever it does so it must fix a day “for the
further hearing of the suit”, except that once the hearing
of the evidence has begun it must go on from day to day till
all the witnesses in attendance have been examined unless
the Court considers, for reasons to be recorded in writing,
that a further adjournment is necessary. Then follows rule
2-
“Where., on any day to which the hearing of the suit is
adjourned, the parties or any of them fail to appear, the
Court may proceed to dispose of the suit in one of the modes
directed in that behalf by Order IX or make such other order
as it thinks- fit”.
Now rule 2 only applies when one or both of the parties do
not appear on the day fixed far the adjourned hearing. In
that event, the Court is thrown back to Order IX with the
additional power to make “such order as it thinks fit”.
When it goes back to Order IX it finds that it is again
empowered to proceed ex parte on the adjourned hearing in
the same way as it did, or could have done, if one or other
of the parties had not appeared at the first hearing, that
is to say, the right to proceed ex parte is a right which
accrues from day to day because at each adjourned hearing
the Court is thrown back to Order IX, rule 6. It is not a
mortgaging of the future but only applies to the particular
hearing at which a party was afforded the chance to appear
and did not avail himself of it. Therefore, if a party does
appear on “the day to which the hearing of the suit is
adjourned”, he cannot be stopped from participating in the
proceedings simply because he did not appear on the first or
some other hearing.
But though he has the right to appear at an adjourned
hearing, he has no right to set back the hands of the clock.
Order IX, rule 7 makes that clear. Therefore, unless he can
show good cause, he must accept all that has gone before and
be content to proceed from the stage at which he comes in.
But what exactly does that import? To determine that it
will be neces-
sary to hark back to the first hearing.
We have already seen that when a summons is issued to the
defendant it must state whether the hearing is for the
settlement of issues only or for the final disposal of the
suit (Order V, rule 5). In either event, Order VIII, rule I
comes into play and if the defendant does not present a
written statement of his defence, the Court can insist that
he shall; and if, on being required to do so, he fails to
comply-
“the Court may pronounce judgment against him, or make such
order in relation to the suit as it thinks fit”. (Order
VIII, rule 10).
This invests the Court with the widest possible discretion
and enables it to see that justice is done to both sides;
and also to witnesses if they are present: a matter on which
we shall dwell later.
We have seen that if the defendant does not appearat the
first hearing, the Court can proceed exparte, which means
that it can proceed without a written statement; and Order
IX, rule 7 makes it clear that unless good cause is shown
the defendant cannot be relegated to the position that he
would have occupied if he had appeared. That means that he
cannot put in a written statement unless he is allowed to do
so, and if the case is one in which the Court considers a
written statement should have been put in, the consequences
entailed by Order VIII, rule 10 must be suffered. What
those consequences should be in a given case is for the
Court, in the exercise of its judicial discretion, to
determine. No hard and fast rule can be laid down. ID some
cases an order awarding costs to the plaintiff would meet
the ends of justice: an adjournment can be granted or a
written statement can be considered oil the spot and issues
framed. In other cases, the ends of justice may call for
more drastic action.
Now when we speak of the ends of justice, we mean justice
not only to the defendant and to the other side but also to
witnesses and others who may be inconvenienced. It is an
unfortunate fact that the convenience of the witness is
ordinarily lost sight of in this class of case and yet be is
the one that deserves
the greatest consideration. As a rule, he is not parti-
cularly interested in the dispute but he is vitally
interested in his own affairs which he is compelled to
abandon because a Court orders him to come to the assistance
of one or other of the parties to a dispute. His own
business has to suffer. He may have to leave his family and
his affairs for days on end. He is usually out of pocket.
Often he is a poor man living in an out of the way village
and may have to trudge many weary miles on foot. And when
he gets there, there are no arrangements for him. He is not
given accommodation; and when he reaches the Court, in most
places there is no room in which he can wait. He has to
loiter about in the verandahs or under -the trees, shivering
in the cold of winter and exposed to the heat of summer ,
wet and miserable in the rains: and then, after wasting
hours and sometimes days for his turn, he is brusquely told
that he must go back and come again another day. Justice
strongly demands that this unfortunate section of the
general public compelled to discharge public duties, usually
at loss and inconvenience to themselves, should not be
ignored in the over all picture of what will best serve the
ends of justice and it may well be a sound exercise of
discretion in a given case to refuse an adjournment and
permit the plaintiff to examine the witnesses present and
not allow the defendant to cross-examine them, still less to
adduce his own evidence. It all depends on the particular
case. But broadly speaking, after all the various factors
have been taken into consideration and carefully weighed,
the endeavour should be to avoid snap decisions and to
afford litigants a real opportunity of fighting out their
cases fairly and squarely. Costs will be adequate compen-
sation in many cases and in others the Court has almost
unlimited discretion about the terms it can impose provided
always the discretion is judicially exercised and is not
arbitrary.
In the Code of 1859 there was a provision (section 119) which
said that-
“No appeal shall lie from a judgment passed exparte against
a defendant who has not appeared”.
The Privy Council held in Sahibzada Zeinulabdin Khan
v. Sahibzada Ahmed Raza Khan(‘ ) that this only applied to
a defendant who had not appeared at all at any stage,
therefore, if once an appearance was entered, the right of
appeal was not taken away. One. of the grounds of their
decision was that-
“The general rule is that an appeal lies to the High Court
from a decision of a civil or subordinate Judge, and a
defendant ought not to be deprived of the right of appeal,
except by express words or necessary implication”.
The general rule, founded on principles of natural justice,
that proceedings in a Court of justice should not be
conducted behind the back of a party in the absence of an
express provision to that effect is no less compelling. But
that apart. It would be anomalous to hold that the efficacy
of the so-called ex parte order expends itself in the first
Court and that thereafter a defendant can be allowed to
appear in the appellate Court and can be beard and can be
permitted to urge in that Court the very matters he is shut
out from urging in the trial Court; and in the event that
the appellate Court considers a remand necessary he can be
permitted to do the very things he was precluded from doing
in the first instance without wetting the exparte order set
aside under Order IX, rule 7.
Now this is not a case in which the defendant with whom we
are concerned did not appear at the first hearing. He did.
The first hearing was on 11-12-1952 at Kotah. The appellant
(the first defendant) appeared through counsel and filed a
written statement. Issues were framed and the case was
adjourned till the 16th March at Udaipur for the petitioners
evidence alone from the 16th to the 21st March. Therefore,
Order IX, rules 6 and 7 do not apply in terms. But we have
been obliged to examine this order at length because of the
differing views taken in the various High Courts and because
the contention is that Order XVII, rule 2 throws one back to
the position under Order IX, rules 6 and 7, and there,
according to one set of
(1) 5 I.A. 233.3 views, the position is that once an ex parte “order” is “Passed” against a defendant he cannot take further part in the proceedings unless he gets that ‘corder” set aside by showing good cause under rule 7. But that is by no means the case.
If the defendant does not appear at the adjourned hearing (irrespective of whether or not he appeared at the first hearing) Order XVII, rule 2 applies and the Court is given the widest possible discretion either “to dispose of the suit in one of the modes directed in that behalf by Order IX or make such other order as it thinks fit”.
The point is this. The Court has a discretion which it must exercise. Its hands are not tied by the so called ex parte order; and if it thinks they are tied by Order IX, rule 7 then it is not exercising the discretion which the law says it should and, in a given case, interference may be called for.

The learned Judges who constituted a Full Bench of the Lucknow Chief Court (Tulsha Devi v. Sri Krishna(1) ) thought that if the original ex parte order did not enure throughout all future hearings it would be necessary to make a fresh ex parte order at each succeeding hearing. But this proceeds on the mistaken assumption that an ex parte order is required. The order sheet, or minutes of the proceedings,has to show which of the parties were present and if a party is absent the Court records that fact and then records whether it will proceed ex parte against him, that is to say, proceed in his absence, or whether it will adjourn the hearing; and it must necessarily record this fact at every subsequent bearing because it has to record the presence and absence of the parties at each hearing. With all due deference to the learned Judges who hold this view, we do not think this is a grave or a sound objection.
A much weightier consideration is that the plaintiff may be gravely prejudiced in a given case because, as ,the learned Rajasthan Judges point out, and as O’Sullivan, J. thought,when a case proceeds ex parte,
(1) A.I.R. 1949 Oudh 59.the plaintiff does not adduce as much evidence as he would have if it had been contested. He contents himself with leading just enough to establish a prima facie case.
Therefore, if he is suddenly confronted with a contest after he has closed his case and the defendant then comes forward with an army of witnesses he would be taken by surprise and gravely prejudiced. That objection is, however, easily met by the wide discretion that is vested in the Court. If it has reason to believe that the defendant has by his conduct misled the plaintiff into doing what these learned Judges apprehend, then it might be a sound exercise of discretion to shut out cross-examination and the abduction of evidence on the defendant’s part and to allow him only to argue at the stage when arguments are heard. On the other hand,cases may occur when the plaintiff is not and ought not to be, misled. If these considerations are to weigh, then surely the sounder rule is to leave the Court with an unfettered discretion so that it can take every circumstance into consideration and do what seems best suited to meet the ends of justice in the case before it.

In the present case, we are satisfied that the Tribunal did not exercise its discretion because it considered that it had none and thought that until the ex parte order was set aside the defendant could not appear either personally or through counsel. We agree with the Tribunal, and with the High Court, that no good cause was shown and so the defendant had no right to be relegated to the position that he would have occupied if he had appeared on 17-3-1953, but that he had a right to appear through counsel on 20-3-1953 and take part in the proceedings -from the stage at which they had then reached, subject to such terms and conditions as the Tribunal might think fit to impose, is we think, undoubted. Whether he should have been allowed to cross-examine the three witnesses who were examined after the appearance of his counsel, or whether he should have been allowed to adduce evidence, is a matter on which we express no opinion, for that has to depend on whatever view the Tribunal in a sound exercise of judicial discretion will choose to take of the circumstances of this particular case, but we can find no justification for not at least allowing counsel to argue.

Now the Tribunal said on 23-3-1953-
“The exact stage at which the case had reached before us on the 21st of March 1953 was that under the clear impression that respondent No. 1 had failed to appear from the very first date of the final hearing when the ex parte order was passed, the petitioner must have closed his case after offering as little evidence as he thought was just necessary to get his petition disposed of exparte. Therefore, to all the respondent No. 1 to step in now would certainly handicap the petitioner and would amount to a bit of injustice which we can neither contemplate nor con done”.

But this assumes that the petitioner was misled and closed his case “after offering as little evidence as he thought was just necessary to get his petition disposed of ex parte”. It does not decide that that was in fact the case.
If the defendant’s conduct really gave rise to that impression and the plaintiff would have adduced more evidence than he did, the order would be unexceptional but until that is found to be the fact a mere assumption would not be a sound basis for the kind of discretion which the Court must exercise in this class of case after carefully weighing all the relevant circumstances. We, therefore, disagreeing with the High Court which has upheld the Tribunal’s order, quash the order of the Tribunal and direct it to exercise the discretion vested in it by law along the lines we have indicated. In doing so the Tribunal will consider whether the plaintiff was in fact misled or could have been misled if he had acted with due diligence and caution. It will take in-to consideration the fact that the defendant did enter an appearance and did file a written statement and that issues were framed in his presence; also that the case was fixed for the “Petitioner’s” evidence only and not for that of the appellant; and that the petitioner examined all the witnesses he had present on the 17th andthe 18th and did not give up any of them; that he was given an adjournment on 19-3-1953 for the examination witnesses who did not come on that date and that the examined three more on 20-3-1953 after the defendant had entered an appearance through counsel an( claimed the right to plead;
also whether, when the appellant’s only protest was against the bearings a Udaipur on dates fixed for the petitioner’s evidence alone, it would be legitimate for a party acting with due caution and diligence to assume that the other side had abandoned his right to adduce his own evidence should the hearing for that be fixed at some other place or at some other date in the same place.

The Tribunal will also consider and determine whether it will be proper in the circumstances of this case to allow the appellant to adduce his own evidence.

The Tribunal will now reconsider its orders of the 20th, the 21st and the 23rd of March 1953 in the light of our observations and will proceed accordingly.

The records will be sent to the Election Commission with directions to that authority to reconstitute the Tribunal,if necessary, and to direct it to proceed with this matter along the lines indicated above.
There will be no order about costs.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *