Bank's suit was decreed ex-parte against defendant No.6 alone and dismissed on contest against defendants 1 to 5 on alternative relief grounds. The Supreme Court held that an indivisible decree may be set aside in entirety under the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, restored the Single Judge's order reviving the whole suit, and allowed the appeal.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
A
[2008] 13 S.C.R. 900
BANK OF INDIA
/.
M/S MEHTA BROTHERS & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2982 oF 2001)
B
SEPTEMBER 23, 2008.
[TARUN CHATTERJEE AND DALVEER BHANDARI JJ.]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 9 r. 13 and its proviso - Scope of - In an application for setting aside the ex- c_parte decree whether decree passed infavour of_someof the contesting defendants can be set aside - Held: If the decree is indivisible, it can be set aside not only against the defendant who applied for setting aside the ex-parte decree, but also against all or any of the other defendants, regardless of the Dfact whether they appeared, contested or not-Theterm "de- cree" in the first proviso actually meant a decree in general and not ex-parte decree.
A suit filed by appellant-Bank was decreed ex-parte against respondent-Bank, and the same was dismissed Equa respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (the contesting defendants). Respondent-Bank filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Single Judge of High Court set aside the decree in toto i.e. even qua respondent Nos. 1 to 5, relying on proviso to Order 9 Rule F13.Division Bench held that Single Judge could have set aside only the ex-parte decree against the respondentBank and could not have set aside the decree in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 1-lence the present appeal.
) -
Allowing the appeal, the Court
G
HELD: 1.1 A reading of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC would show that an ex-parte decree was ordinarily to be set aside only against the defendant against whom the decree was ex-parte and the suit was to be revived only qua the said
·- i
900
H
BANK OF INDIA v. M/S MEHTA BROTHERS 901 & ORS.
.,
defendant applying for setting aside the ex-parte decree. A It is true that the heading of Order 9 Rule 13 starts with the expression "setting aside of an ex-parte decree". But, if the entire provision is read, it would be clear that the .. said provision provides that the decree must against ona defendant or ex-parte against all be th~ ex-parte defenB dants. The proviso also does not provide that the decree can be set aside against the defendants, other than the applying defei1dant, only if it is ex-parte against them also. The proviso confers powers on the Court to set aside the entire decree where the said decree was of such a nature that it IS expedient in the interest of justice to set asidec the decree as against any or all of the other defendants also. The only requirement for the applicability of this Order is that the decree should be ex-parte against the defendant applying to have it set aside. Thus, the language of the Order does not suggest that for the Order to apply, D the decree must be entirely ex-parte. [Paras 13 and 14) (9140-E 913 B-C 914-AB]
1.2 If the proviso was to apply only if the decree was ex-parte against the other defendants also, that would have rendered the proviso practically infructuous, as in such aE situation, the other defendants would have an independent right to have the decree set aside against them. The idea behind the proviso is that if the decree is being set aside as against some defendants, and the decree as - . against the other defendants is connected, interlinked or F dependent on that part of the decree which is being set aside, the decree may have to be set aside as against the other defendants also. [Para 14) (914 0-F]
' ...
1.3 The term "decree" in the first proviso actually meant a decree in general. The proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 G does not use the expression "ex- parte decree" but it had used the term "decree". If the words used subsequent to the word 'decree' in the proviso were to mean ex-parte decree, the Legislature would have expressly provided so. Therefore, from the intention of the Legislature it canH
H
902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
) -
A not be said that the ex-parte decree can only be set aside and not a decree passed in toto. Frorn the second proviso and also from the explanation, it is evident that the word "decree" is preceded by the word "ex-parte''. This would effectively mean that the Legislature while drafting s the proviso Nc.1, intentionally omitted "Px-parte" befor~ the word "decree" because they intended to mean decree in general. Therefore, a decree can be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants, regardless of the fact whether they appeared, contested or not. [Paras 14 and C 15] [917-A-B, 914-G 916-A-B, D-E; E-F]
1.4 The question whether a contested decree by some of the defendants can be set aside while considering the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree against one of the defendants, would depend on the naD ture of reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in his plaint and the nature of the decree in question. If the decree is indivisible, the court would be at liberty to set aside the decree not only against the defendant who applied for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed against him, but also as E against all or any of the other defendants. In the instant case considering the issues framed in the present suit and the reliefs claimed by the appellant-Bank and the findings arrived at on such issues, the Single Judge was fully justified in restoring the suit in toto and was correct in F setting aside the entire decree and restore the suit in its entirety on an application under Order 9 Rule 13 and was also correct in the approach of Order 9 Rule 13. The ex parte decree was indivisible and rightly set aside not only against respondent No.6 but also against respondent G Nos.1 to 5. [Paras 16, 21 and 22] [917-C-D 922 D-E 923-D]
1.5 In view of the conclusion that the decree was indivisible and was dependent on the decision of the issues, and hence was not possible for the court to set aside the ex parte decree only against respondent No.6. ThereH fore, it cannot be said that it was not open to the appel-
BANK OF INDIA v. M/S MEHTA BROTHERS 903 & ORS.
lant-Bank to restore the suit in toto on the application A under Order 9 Rule 13 filed by respondent No.6, because the appellant-Bank did not choose to prefer any appeal against the order of dismissal of the suit passed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. That apart, the Single Judge having set aside the decree in toto and restored thi: suit in B its entirety, it was not necessary for the appellant-Bank to file any appeal against the dismissal of the suit as against respondent Nos. 1 to 5. [Para 23] [923-G-H; 924-A-B]
Khargesh Chandra Vs. Chandra Kanta Barua AIR 1954, Assam 183 - disapproved
C
Case Law Reference
AIR 1954, Assam 183 Disapproved Para 20
.,
CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2982 D of 2001
From the final Judgment/Order dated 9/11/2000 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in F.A.O. (O.S) No. 78of1991
K.N. Bhatt, Deepak Khurana and KumKum Sen for the E Appellant.
Rajiv Sawhney, Jayant Bhusan, Sanjeev Anand, Dibya Nishant, Pravin Balhadur, Kanika Gomber, Mallika Joshi and Rajan Narain for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
F
TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. The appellant - Bank of In~ dia, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies [Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings] Act, 1970 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.91,58,480.09 against the defendantsG respondents on 301 h of August, 1982, inter alia, alleging that on the request of defendant nos. 1 to 5, namely, M/s Mehta Brothers and Ors. on 261 h of June, 1979, the appellant Bank issued an irrevocable Letter of Credit for US $ 6, 10,900, equivalent to Indian currency about Rs.50,00,000/-, in favour of M/s Bentrex H
904
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
A and Co., Singapore. The said Letter of Credit was expressly made subject to the terms and conditions of Uniform Customs. and Practice for Documentary Credits [1974] Revision, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No.290. On 1st of September, 1979, the beneficiary drew a site draft for an amount B of US$ 6, 10, 7 40 and presented the same along with other documents to Deutsche Bank Asia [formerly known as European Asian Bank], a body corporate incorporated in West Germany being a foreign company under the Companies Act, 1956 - defendant No.6 - respondent no. 6 (in short 'the respondent C No.6') for negotiations. On 4th of September, 1979, respondent no.6 after negotiating the documents dispatched the original and duplicate set of the documents from Singapore directly to the Chandni Chowk Branch of the appellant Bank and called upon the New York Branch of the appellant Bank for reimburseD ment under the Letter of Credit. The appellant Bank further alleged that this was done without furnishing the necessary certificate of compliance which was required under the terms of letters of credit. On 5th of September, 1979, the New York Branch of the appellant Bank on receipt of the aforesaid claim, in good faith, paid on account, without prejudice, the said amount of US E $ 6,10,"740. On 13th of September, 1979 the appellant Bank received the documents from respondent no.6 and found that there were many discrepancies in the documents and they were not as per the Uniform Customs and Practice of Documentary Credits [197 4 Revision]. On 14th of September, 1979, by a telex F the appellant Bank pointed out to respondent no.6 some of the discrepancies in the documents and stated that the documents were being held at its risk and responsibility. Respondent no.6 was requested to reverse the reimbursement already claimed by it from the New York Branch of the appellant Bank. On the G same day respondent no.6 by its telex to the appellant Bank rejected the claim of the appellant Bank alleging that these discrepancies were of minor nature and all the terms and conditions of the Letter of Credit were complied with. On 14th of September, 1979, Mehta Brothers- defendant nos. 1 to 5 - responH dent nos.1 to 5 (in short 'respondent nos. 1 to 5') also did not
' -
BANK OF INDIA v. M/S MEHTA BROTHERS 905 & ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]
·1
.,
-·--.
~ •
"'t "
honour and return the documents as they were not at all in acA cordance with the terms of Letter of Credit. The appellant Bank - further alleged that respondent no.6 had failed and neglected to reply and reimburse to the appellant Bank the amount received by it from the New York Branch. Respondent no.6 had failed to furnish to the New York Branch of the appellant Bank B the certificates of compliance in terms of the said Letter of Credit, for that reason also respondent no.6 acted in breach of its obligation under the Letter of Credit to do so and, therefore, was not entitled to claim and return the payment received thereunder. Despite repeated requests and reminders, respondent nos. c 1 to 5 did not honour and return the said documents and went on contending that there were discrepancies in the documents. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 also stated that their claim with the insurance company was likely to be finalized soon and the amount payable thereunder shall be received by the appellant Bank diD rectly from the insurance company for the adjustment of the amount due and payable by them under the Letter of Credit. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 as also respondent no.6 had denied their respective liability to repay to the appellant Bank the amounts claimed by it and the appellant Bank was in doubt as E to the persons from whom it was entitled to redress, accordingly, the appellant Bank joined respondent nos.1 to 5 and respondent no.6 as parties to the suit in order to determine the question as to which of the defendants was liable to the appellant Bank and to what extent. If separate suits were brought against respondent nos. 1 to 5 and respondent no.6, common F question of law and fact would arise, therefore, the appellant Bank had a right to relief against respondent nos. 1 to 5 or respondent no. 6.
H
906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
BANK OF INDIA v. M/S MEHTA BROTHERS 907 & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
)
-- f
Procedure (in short the 'Code') for setting aside the ex parte A decree and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. By an order dated 28th of February, 1991, the learned single judge of the High Court allowed both the applications filed by respondent no.6. Accordingly, the ex parte decree B passed against respondent no.6 was set aside subject to payment of Rs.25,000/·· as costs out of which Rs.15,000/-was payable to the appellant Bank and Rs.10,000/- to respondent nos. 1 to 5. While setting aside the ex parte decree against respondent no.6, by the same order, the learned Single Judge also set c aside that portion of the decree whereby the suit against respondent nos. 1 to 5 was dismissed. To set aside that part of the decree, the learned single judge had relied on the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned single judge, respondent nos. 1 to 5 D filed first appeal being FAO [OS] No.78of1991 before the High Court of Delhi. The appellant Bank also filed FAO [OS] No.100 of 1991.
H
908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S. C.R.
"Whether, under the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a decree passed in favour of the c contesting defendants can be set aside as against a defendant also being part of the same suit, on an application made by him, for setting aside an ex-parte decree against him."
D lant Bank vehemently argued before us that on account of the ex-parte decree against the respondent no. 6, the alternative claim against respondent nos. 1 to 5 was dismissed without trial, therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court was in error in setting aside the decree of dismissal passed in favour of
E respondent nos. 1 to 5. Thus, according to Mr. K. N. Bhatt, learned senior counsel for the appellant Bank, on respondent no. 6's default being condoned, the suit filed by the appellant Bank was rightly restored in toto by the learned single judge which, however, was set aside in appeal. Learned senior counsel for the
F appe!llant Bank further contended that in the present case, the ex-pa rte decree passed by the learned single judge was of such a nature that it could not be set aside only against respondent no. Ei and hence the order of the learned single judge setting aside the decree in its entirety was fully justified. On the inter-
G pretation/construction of the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, in particular, its proviso, the learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 5 strongly urged that on a plain reading of this provision under Order 9 Rule t3 of the Code and the proviso therein, there should not be any difficulty to come to the conclusion that the language of Order 9 Rule 13 is very
H
' -
-r •
,,
~sANK OF INDIA v. MIS MEHTA BROTHERS 909 & ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]
)
-~
II> ....
clear and that the said provision yvill apply only to a decree which A has been passed ex-parte and to the defendants against whom, ex-parte decree has been passed and not against the defendants who have been successful in the suit and the suit has been dismissed in their favour. A~cording to the learned counsel for the respondeni nos. 1 to 5, the proviso to Order 9 Rule B 13 of the Code also contemplates setting aside of an ex..:parte decree only against the defendants who were proceeded exparte but had not made an application for its setting aside. Relying on paragraph 8 of a Full Bench decision of the Assam High Court reported in Khargesh Chandra Vs. Chandra Kanta c Barua, AIR 1954 Assam 183, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5 contended that two significant changes in the provisions under the Code of 1908 namely, the words, 'as against him' have been added after the words 'shall make an order setting aside the decree and the proviso' to the rule. According to the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5, these changes0 left no room for doubt that as a general rule, the decree was to be set aside as against the defendant making the appli<?ation under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code but in exceptional cases, contemplated by the proviso., it could be set aside against all or E any of the other defendants. Further, relying on paragraph 8 of .· the aforesaid decision, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 argued that the decree set aside must be a decree "against the defendant and not a decree in their favofrr". Accordingly, the learned counsel for the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 contended that proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code cannotF have any application as the decree dated 10th of March, 1987 was in favour of respondent nos. 1 to 5 and not against them. It. was next contended on behalf of learned counsel.for the respondent nos. 1 to 5 that the learned single judge was not correct in reviving the suit in its entirety on the ground that the decree was G one and indivisible. According to the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 to 5, in view of the liability of ~he respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and in view of the alternative reliefs claimed in ti1e suit itself, the decree was separate and, therefore, it could be split up. Therefore, the learned cou"nsel for the respondent nos. H
·~.
910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
A 1 to 5 contended that the Division Bench of the High Court was fully justified in setting aside that portion of the decree by which the suit against respondent nos. 1 to 5 was dismissed.
911
,,
c
BANK OF INDIA v. MIS MEHTA BROTHERS & ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.]
setting aside the ex parte decree but also the decree passed in A favour of the other defendants who appeared and contested the suit.
,..
·:-"i
"In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was made for an order to set it aside, and if he satisfies the Court that the summons were not duly served, the Court shall pass an order to set aside such decree upon D such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit and shall appoint a date for proceeding with the suit"
From a plain reading of the provisions made under Section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, it is evident that E on the Court being satisfied with the merits of an application for setting aside of an ex-parte decree, it was required to set aside the decree and proceed with the suit. The words used in this section, namely, "the decree" "set aside the decree" and i§proceeding with the suitj"" would clearly show that in Section-108 F there was no provision to set aside an ex parte decree only against the defendant against whom the ex parte decree was ._passed and who had, accordingly, made an application for setting it aside. Therefore, it is clear from this provision that if an ex parte decree was to be set aside by the court, the same had to G be set aside in toto i.e. as against all the defendants in the suit. In our opinion, the expression "proceeding with the suit" would also clearly show that the intentions of the Legislature that the court was required to proceed with the suit, i.e. between all the plaintiffs and the defendants. However, in the interpretation of H
912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
A Section 108 particularly "decree'', "ex parte decree" and i§proceeding with the suit(. there was a difference of opinion expressed by different High Courts in India, that is to say, as to whether the ex parte decree had to be set aside in toto, or whether the same was required to be set aside only as against B the party against whom the ex parte decree was passed. This difference of opinion of different High Courts was, however, removed by t~e introduction of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code.
D
E
"13. Setting aside decree ex-parte against defendant- In any case in which a decree is passed ex-parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons were not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit:
Provided that here the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it F may be set aside as against all or any of the other clefendants also:
G
Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex-parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim.
Explanation- Where there has been an appeal against a decree passed ex-parte under this rule, and the appeal
H
BANK OF INDIA v. M/S MEHTA BROTHERS 913 & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
,.
-·
has been disposed of on any ground other than the A ground that the appellant Bank has withdrawn t/Je appeal, . no application shall lie under this rule for setting aside that ex-parte decree.".
~-.
1-3. We have carefully examined the provisions under Or". B der 9 Rule 13 of the Code as well as its proviso and other relevant provisions under Order 9 of the Code. A reading of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code Would i::learly show that under this provision it was clarified that an ex pa rte decree was ordinarily to be set aside only against the defendant against whom the decree was ex parte and the suit was to be revived only qua the saidc defendant applying for setting aside the ex parte decree. It is true that the heading of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code starts with the expression "setting aside of an ex parte decree". But if we examine this provision under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code,as well as its proviso in depth and in detail, it would not be difficult D for us to come to a conclusion that under Order 9 Rule 13, it has been clarified that an ex pa rte decree is . ordinarily to be set aside only as against the defendants against whom the decree has been ex parte and the suit is to be revived only qua the defendant who applied for setting aside the ex parte decree. E Keeping this in mind, let us now examine whether the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code gives ample power to the court to set aside the decree passed .in favour of the contesting defen~ dants at the time of setting aside the ex parte decree against other defendants. Therefore, let us now deal with the proviso to F Order 9Rule13 of the Code. It provides that in cases where the decree is of such a nature that the same cannot be set aside only as against the defendant applying for setting it aside, the . decree could also be set aside as against any or all of the other defendants. Therefore, in our view, this proviso confers power G on the court to set aside the entire decree if the court is of the view that the decree passed was of such a nature that the same could not be set aside only as against the defendant applying for setting aside the decree, the decree could also be set aside as against any or all of the other defendants. Therefore, this
H
914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
,.. ~
A proviso clearly confers powers on the Court to set aside the entire decree where the said decree was of such a nature that it is expedient in the interest of justice to set aside the decree as against any or all of the other defendants also. After carefully examining the provision under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code Balong with its proviso, the following, therefore, emerges:-
BANK OF INDIA v. MIS MEHTA BROTHERS 915 & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
look at that the term "decree" over here means the ex parte A decree, which was passed against the defendant who had afterwards applied for setting it aside. This interpretation can be illustrated with the help of the following hypothetical situation. Let us assume that there are many defendants and the decree is passed ex-parte against all the defendants, defendant No.1 B . subsequently applies for setting aside the said ex-parte decree, according to the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, if the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against the defendant No.1 only, then it would be open for the court to set aside the decree as against all or any of the other defen- c dants as well. Qf course, we are considering the decrees which have been passed ex parte against all of them at the present moment. Thus, according to this interpretation, for the court to be able to exercise power under this proviso, the word "decree" used in ,the proviso must be construed to mean ex-parte de- 0 cree only. The arguments which can be made in support of this interpretation may be summarized as follows:
a) The heading to Order 9 Rule 13 says, "ex parte decree'', b) The expression "ex-~arte" is used under Order 9 Rule 13 only once and then it uses the word either i§decreej"' or"it" in this context. Therefore, if we read the proviso, it should mean ex parte decree only.
E
Therefore, according to the above-discussed interpretation, only that decree can be set aside under the proviso to Qrder 9 Rule 13 of the Code, which was passed ex-parte. There- , _ fore, a decree which is not ex-parte, that is to say, a decree ·· against persons who appeared and contested, cannot be set aside, much less persons who not only appeared but in whose .favour the suit was dismissed. This is the one look on the interG pretation of the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. l..et us now take up the second way to look at this proviso by interpreting that the worcj "decree" used in the proviso means a decree in general and not necessarily an ex-parte decr~e. In support ot this interpretation we may note the points emerged :
F
G
H
916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2008) 13 S.C.R.
y -
A If the subsequent words used in the proviso were to mean ex-pa rte decree. the Legislature would have expressly provided so. Therefore, from the intention of the Legislature it cannot be said that the ex parte decree can only be set aside and not a decree passed in toto.
B
At this juncture, we may look at the second proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code 1Nhich runs as under:-
" Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex-parte merely on the ground that there has c been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim.
Therefore, looking at the second proviso to Order 9 Rule D 13 of the Code and also the explanation, we see that the word "decree" is preceded by the word "ex parte" This would, in our view, effectively mean that the Legislature while drafting the proviso No.1 to Order 9 Rule 13, intentionally omitted "ex parte" before the word "decree" because they intended to mean deE cree in general.
~ 5. Therefore, if we go by the above mentioned interpretation, a decree can be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants, regardless of the fact whether they appeared, contested or not. Keeping this interpretation of the first proviso to F Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code in mind, let us now take up the other question to be answered in this case, which is whether a decree can be set aside against a defendant against whom the suit has been dismissed on contest. At the first blush, we thought it fit to think that a defendant who contested a suit and got the suit disG missed on contest it would be unjust to call back the said defendant who had already contested the matter and got the suit dismisse!d. This is because, it would amount to jeopardizing his interest but it would also result in unending litigation for him.Therefore, before expressing any opinion on the issue posed H before us, we have to solve this aspect also. For this reason, we
...
BANK OF INDIA v. MIS MEHTA BROTHERS 917 & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
wish to ascertain that there cannot be a rigid answer to this problem. As regards the question as to whether the term "decree" in the first proviso connotes ex-pa rte decree or the decree in general, we have already come to a firm opinion, as discussed herein above, that it actually meant a decree in general. It may be kept on record that, in our view, the intention of the Legislature to use· the word "decree" in the first proviso to mean decree in general in view of the changes in the expression made in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
. 16. Therefore, keeping this in mind, let us now consider whether a contested decree by some of the defendants can be set aside while considering the application for setting aside the ex parte decree against one of the defendants. This would, in our view, certainly depend on the nature of reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in his plaint and the nature of the decree in question. If the decree is indivisible, the court would be at liberty to aside the decree not only against the defendant who applied for setting aside the ex pa rte decree passed against him, but also as against all or any ohhe other defendants. In the instant case at our disposal, the Division Bench of the High Court had set aside that part of the order of the learned single judge by which the learned single judge had set aside the order of dismissal 'of the suit as against the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 on the application under Order 9 Rule 13 only by the respondent No. 6 for setting aside its ex-parte decree, on the ground that the decree passed was divisible. Therefore, the question remain§ to be considered as to whether the decree passed in the suit filed by the appellant Bank is indivisible or not. To answer this query, it would be necessary for us to look into the issues framed in the suit and the reliefs claimed in so far as it is relevant, but before doing that we may note that the suit was filed by the appellant Bank seeking a decree against respondent no. 6 and -in the alternative, as against respondent nos. 1 to 5 if the respondent no. 6 was found not to be liable. The issues which were framed in the suit in so far as it is relevant for the disposal of this appeal, may be set down below:
A
B
C ·
E
F
G
H
918 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
A
D
E
,,.
BANK OF INDIA v. M/S MEHTA BROTHERS 919 & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
tiated by respondent No.6 were deficient and thus there was ·A non compliance/breach of the terms and conditions of the Letter of Credit by respondent No.6. Having found this Issue No.1 in favour of the appellant Bank and against respondent No.6 and the remaining issues, namely, Issue Nos. 2, 7 and 8 which were also decided may be referred to at this stage. B
B
Issue No. 2 - "In vie1 N of my decision in Issue No.1, the defendants 1 to 5 were justified in refusing to retire the documents. Issue is decided accordingly.
'·
Issue No. 7 -"It was not shown to me how the suit in the c alternative was not maintainable"
Issue No. 8 -"In view of my finding that defendants 1 to 5 were not liable to· pay any amount, this issue does not arii;e.
-~
II - ...
-. "
"It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the G plaintiff that the proceedings in the suit may be adjourned sine-die in view of the judgment in Suit No. 1182 of 1982 in Bank of India Vs. Mehta Brothers given on 1 oth of March, 1987. It is further submitted that it should be left open to the plaintiff to get the proceedings revived as H
920 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2008) 13 S.C.R.
A
B
and when necessary The request of the learned counsel for the plaintiff is not being opposed on behalf of the defendant. In view thereof further proceedings in this suit are adjourned sine die. It should be open to the plaintiff to apply for reviving the proceeding as and when necessary"
On a plain reading of this order and the stand taken by respondent No.1 in the aforesa!d suit, it is clear to us that respondent No.1 has reserved liberty to revive the pending suit, if necessary.
c
..
....
"
BANK OF INDIA v. MIS MEHTA BROTHERS 921 & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, ... J.)
j
•
"(51 ) .. .... What is to be considered is not whether the plaintiff is estopped from claiming relief against the defendant without going to the appellate court, since there has been an adjudication between him and the defendant E who appeared at the earlier hearing, but whether the defendant who was absent at the time (for sufficient reasons) should not get a chance to reopen the entire suit in his interest, if the justice of the case so demands. To my mind, the intention of the Legislature is to give F him such relief and therefore the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13, Civil Procedural Code, admits of no narrower interpretation, and when the decree is of such a nature that proper· relief cannot be given to the applying defendant without setting aside the decree against other G defendants (no matter in what shape it existed}, the decree may be set aside as against the other defendants also."
F
...
At this stage, paragraph 8 of the Full Bench decision of the Assam High Court in Khargesh Chandra (supra) may also be dealt with. The said paragraph noted two significant changes H
922
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
A which were elfected in Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code namely, the words "as against him" were added after the words "shall make an order setting aside the decree" and the proviso to the Rule. Accordingly, from this paragraph of the Full Bench decision, the chan~ies left no room for doubt that as a general rule, the deBcree was tobeset asideagainst thepersonmaking the appli- cation under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, but in exceptional cases, contemplated by the proviso, it could be set aside against all or any of the other defendants. Emphasis was made in this paragraph that the decree to be set aside must ~e a cdecree "against the defendants and not a decree in their favour".
..
..
- Reliance on paragraph 8 of the Full Bench decision of . - F the Assam High Court as relied on by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 cannot be considered to be a good law in view of the fact that it itself accepts the position that in exceptional cases contemplated by the proviso under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, the ex-parte decree could be set aside not only G on the defendant who applied for setting aside the ex-parte decree but also on or any other defendants. In view of the discussions made hereinabove, we are not in a position to agree ,, with the submission of the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 who placed strong reliance on paragraph 8 of the aforeHsaiddecisiontocontendthat thedecree tobeset aside must
BANK OF INDIA v. M/S MEHTA BROTHERS & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.]
923
be a decree "against defendants and not a decree in their A favour", irrespective of the fact whether the decree was passed ·in favour of the defendants on contest.
As noted herein earlier, we have already discussed that in the judgment, it was held that respondent No. 6 against whom B the ex-parte decree was passed, was only liable to pay the decretal amount to the appellant Bank. The suit was dismissed as against respondent Nos. 1 to 5 only on the ground that the claim of the appellant Bank was satisfied against respondent No. 6 and in view of such relief already obtained by the appellant Bank against respondent No. 6, Issue Nos. 2, 7 & 8 were held in favour C of respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and as a result of that, the suit was dismissed on contest as against respondent Nos. 1 to 5. Accordingly, we are of the firm opinion that the ex parte decree . was indivisible and rightly set aside not only against respondent No.6 but also against respondent Nos.1 to 5. Since no D argument was advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant Bank that the findings of the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench on the question whether there was sufficient cause for respondent No.6 to get the ex-parte decree set aside, we do not intend to examine the correctness of the findE ings of the learned single judge as well as of the Division Bench to the extent that responclent No. 6 had made out sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date, the suit was decreed ex-pa rte against it.
E
924 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2008] 13 S.C.R.
..._
A was not possible for the court to set aside the ex pa rte decree only against respondent No.6. Therefore, we do not think that this argument of the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 5 would be of any help. That apart, the learned single judge having set aside the decree in toto and restored the suit in its enB tirety, it was not necessar1 for the appellant Bank to file any appeal against the dismissal of the suit as against respondent Nos. 1to5.
K.K.T.
Appeal allowed.
2 issues framed by the court
Whether under the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 CPC a decree in favour of contesting defendants can be set aside on an application by another defendant to set aside an ex-parte decree against him.
Whether the decree in the Bank's suit against the negotiating bank and the alternative defendants was one indivisible decree.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Khargesh Chandra v. Chandra Kanta BaruaDisapproved¶20
Khargesh Chandra Vs. Chandra Kanta Barua AIR 1954, Assam 183 · Who else cites this
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Bank of India
M/s Mehta Brothers & Ors
Deutsche Bank Asia (formerly European Asian Bank)
Tarun Chatterjee
Dalveer Bhandari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
