BANK OF INDIA versus M/S MEHTA BROTHERS & ORS.

BANK OF INDIA versus M/S MEHTA BROTHERS & ORS.

Where an ex-parte decree is indivisible and interconnected with the decree against contesting defendants, the court is justified in setting aside the entire decree (including portions passed in favour of contesting defendants) under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, upon application by one defendant.

Source-derived case information.

Parties
Appellant: Bank of India; Respondents: M/s Mehta Brothers and Ors.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
23 September 2008
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Decision of High Court
Outcome
Appeal allowed
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Decree, Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, Setting Aside Decrees, Indivisible Decree, Letter of Credit
Civil Procedure Banking Law Ex Parte Decree Order 9 Rule 13 CPC Setting Aside Decrees Indivisible Decree Letter of Credit

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bank of India

Appellant

M/s Mehta Brothers and Ors.

Respondents

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Division Bench Decision of High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether, under the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a decree passed in favour of 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.

Ratio Decidendi

Where an ex-parte decree is indivisible and interconnected with the decree against contesting defendants, the court is justified in setting aside the entire decree (including portions passed in favour of contesting defendants) under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, upon application by one defendant.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed

Orders

  • The impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court is set aside to the extent it reversed the Single Judge's order restoring the suit in its entirety.
  • The judgment of the Single Judge is restored; the suit is revived in its entirety against all defendants.