KEWAL RAM versus SMT. RAM LUBHAI & ORS. AND VICE VERSA

Neither Chet Ram nor Kuldip Ram was served in the suit or appeal; therefore, there was no decree in law against them, and their application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC before the Trial Court was proper. The decree against Kewal Ram, who contested the suit, stands, but the decree against the unserved brothers is set aside.

Parties: Appellant/respondent: Kewal Ram; Respondent/appellant: Smt. Ram Lubhai; Respondent: Chet Ram; Respondent: Kuldip Ram
Jurisdiction: India
Judgment Date: 26 March 1987
Procedural Posture: Civil Appeal / Final Appeal Before Supreme Court
Outcome: Appeals dismissed
Legal Topics: Ex Parte Decree, Pre Emption, Order IX Rule 13 CPC, Service of Process, Joint Decree

Civil Procedure Property Law Ex Parte Decree Pre Emption Order IX Rule 13 CPC Service of Process Joint Decree

Case Brief

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3

Parties

Kewal Ram

Appellant/respondent

Smt. Ram Lubhai

Respondent/appellant

Chet Ram

Respondent

Kuldip Ram

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appeal Before Supreme Court

Legal Issues

1 Whether an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is maintainable before the Trial Court to set aside an ex-parte decree passed both by the Trial Court and confirmed by the Appellate Court, when the defendants were not served.
2 Whether a joint decree can stand against one defendant while being set aside against others unserved.

Ratio Decidendi

Court Disposition

Appeals dismissed

Orders

Decree stands against Kewal Ram; decree set aside against Chet Ram and Kuldip Ram.
Plaintiff entitled to two-thirds share of consideration from Kuldip Ram and Chet Ram.