Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

11. No doubt it is true that where a decree is passed exparte against the defendant he may apply before the Court where the http://www.judis.nic.in decree was passed for setting aside the exparte decree. Then the court on satisfaction of the ground make an order setting aside the decree against them. Though the Order 9 Rule 13 of C.P.C. states that the application has to be filed before the court which passed the decree, from the records it is very clear that in fact application under section 5 of the Limitation Act to condone the delay of 536 days filed before the Principal District Judge, which passed the decree, such application was pending for filing counter before the Principal District Judge in I.A.No.258 of 2010 till 27.08.2010. Thereafter, the entire case records have been transferred to the Principal Subordinate Court, in view of the enhancement of the pecuniary jurisdiction.

The next point taken in, that the words "save as otherwise provided" in the section prevent its applicability to the present case, as it is argued that Order IX, Rule 18, requires that the application should be made to the Court that passed the decree and to no other Court. It does not say anything about other Courts and I am unable to read it as excluding the application of Section 150. The rule is an enabling one which prescribes what is to be done in the ordinary course, to get an ex parte decree set aside. It does not say that the Court that passed the decree is the only Court that can set it aside. Nor is there anything restrictive in the wording."

14. In a Division Bench Judgment of Andhra Pradesh High http://www.judis.nic.in Court in Dr.G.M.Narayana Swamy vs. The Union of India [(1977) 1 AP LJ 445] it is held as follows:

6. In order to appreciate the scope of the contentions of the parties on question No. 1, it is necessary to consider the content of the provisions of Sec. 150 C.P.C. The transferee court shall have the same powers and perform the same duties as those conferred and imposed by or under the Civil Procedure Code upon the original court from which the business of the court was transferred to that court. The powers of the transferee court indicated in section 150 C.P.C. are subject to the other provisions of the Code The use of the expression 'Save as otherwise provided' in the beginning of the section supports the aforesaid view. This section does not restrict the powers of the transferee Court in so far as the suit or proceeding which has been transferred to that court, is concerned. In other words, what all the court which originally passed the decree was competent to do and could do can also be done by the transferee court. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree is entertainable under Order 9, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code. The Application to set aside the ex parte decree has to be made to the court by which it was passed. The court which passed the ex parte decree would be entitled to set aside the same against the defendant on his application and upon such terms as to costs payment into court or otherwise, as it thinks fit, if it is satisfied that the summons was not duly served or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing in the http://www.judis.nic.in court when the suit was called on for hearing. The right of the defendant to apply for setting aside the ex parte decree passed against him to the court which passed the ex parte decree would enure to his benefit to prefer similar application even before the transferee court. By virtue of the provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 read with section 150 CPC. the defendant, against whom an ex parte decree has been passed by the original court, can prefer an application to set aside that ex parte decree before the transferee court and the transferee court just as the original court which passed the ex parte decree is competent to pass such order as it deems fit and proper.

Where the decree has been transferred to another court or where the properties involved in the suit have been transferred to the jurisdiction of another court, as a result of which the business of the original court was transferred to another court, the transferee court can exercise all the powers that could have been exercised by the original court in other words for all practical purposes the transferee court must be considered to be the original court and it can certainly entertain an application to set aside the ex parte decree as if it had been passed by itself. This view of ours gains support from decided cases which we shall presently refer to. In J.V. Srinivasa Rao v. Hanumantha Rao and others MANU/TN/0089/1922 : A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 10 a Division Bench of the Madras High Court had held that where the whole business of one court is transferred to another court, the expression the court by which the decree was passed cannot be taken to be limited to the original court. http://www.judis.nic.in Therein, an ex parte decree was passed against the respondent and others by the District Munsif's court, Penukonda in C.S. No. 1230 of 1919. Subsequently there was a readjustment of territorial jurisdiction between the District Munisif's Court at Penukonda and the District Munsif's Court at Anantapur as a result of which all the properties covered by the decree were transferred to the jurisdiction of the latter court. In the circumstances the respondent, against whom the ex parte decree was passed, had applied to the District Munsif's Court, Anantapur for setting aside the ex parte decree against him and his request was granted. Against that order, a revision was preferred to the Madras High Court. The question that fell for the decision of the Madras High Court was whether the transferee court i.e. the District Munsif's Court Anantapur was competent to entertain the application of the Respondent-defendant under Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him by the District Munsif's Court, Penukonda. The contention of the petitioner-decree holder is that section 150 C.P.C. is attracted only when the whole of the business of the court with reference to its jurisdiction is transferred to another court, such as when the court is abolished and another is substituted for it, and not in a case of partial adjustment of jurisdiction of the court and transfer of its business with reference to that part alone to another court, was negatived. It was field that there was nothing in the language of section 150 C.P.C. to support the theory of such restricted meaning, nor any authority to that effect. As observed by, Alyrng, J., in http://www.judis.nic.in Seeni Nadan v. Muthuswami Pillai MANU/TN/0054/1919 : I.L.R. 42 Mad,. 821 at 835. "this section certainly seems to cover the case of transfer of all the litigations arising out of a tract of country from one part to another". The further submission that Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. requires the application to be filed only before the court which passed the decree but no other court, was rejected. It is pertinent to notice that the provisions of Order, 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. do not indicate that except the court that passed the ex parte decree, no other court can entertain the application for setting aside the ex parte decree. There is no such specific indication in the provision. If the intention of legislature was that it is only the court which passed the decree but none else, that is competent to entertain an application to set aside the ex parte decree, the language of Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. would have been differently worded. In this regard, we may notice the use of the words "such judge or judges or any of them shall hear the application and no other judge or judges of the court shall hear the same'' in Order 47 Rule 5 C.P.C. In the case of review, the same court or the Judge that passed the order sought to be reviewed, would be competent to review the same. The provisions of Order 9, Rule 13 C.P.C. must be construed fairly and reasonably but not in a pedantic way. If the contention of the respondent's counsel is acceded to, it will lead to anomalies resulting in great hardship. The view taken by the Division Bench in J.V. Srinivasa Rao v. Hanumantha Rao and others MANU/TN/0089/1922 : A.I.R. 1922 Mad. 10 has been accepted by another Division Bench in http://www.judis.nic.in Mouna Guruswamy Naicker v. Sheikh Muhammadhu Rowther MANU/TN/0076/1922 : A.I.R. 1923 Mad 92 at