SMT. SUDHA DEVI versus M.P. NARAYANAN & ORS.

SMT. SUDHA DEVI versus M.P. NARAYANAN & ORS.

The Supreme Court held that an ex-parte decree cannot be passed merely because the defendant fails to appear; reliable, relevant evidence is still required. Affidavits cannot be used as evidence unless permitted by court order. The plaintiff failed to prove, through her evidence, the induction of the third defendant after the earlier decree. The suit must be remanded for retrial to allow proper opportunity for all issues to be addressed.

Parties
Appellant: Smt. Sudha Devi; Respondent: M.P. Narayanan; Respondent: Baranagar Jute Factory Company Ltd.; Respondent: Sadhan Chattopadhyaya
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
26 April 1988
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision, Supreme Court Retrial Order
Outcome
Appeals allowed; suit remanded for retrial.
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Decree, Ejectment, Setting Aside Decree, Mesne Profits, Affidavits as Evidence
Civil Procedure Ex Parte Decree Ejectment Setting Aside Decree Mesne Profits Affidavits as Evidence

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Smt. Sudha Devi

Appellant

M.P. Narayanan

Respondent

Baranagar Jute Factory Company Ltd.

Respondent

Sadhan Chattopadhyaya

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Decision, Supreme Court Retrial Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an ex-parte decree can be passed without reliable relevant evidence
  2. 2 Whether affidavits can be used as evidence without court order under Order XIX Rules 1 or 2
  3. 3 Whether plaintiff can fill up lacuna in evidence at Supreme Court stage

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court held that an ex-parte decree cannot be passed merely because the defendant fails to appear; reliable, relevant evidence is still required. Affidavits cannot be used as evidence unless permitted by court order. The plaintiff failed to prove, through her evidence, the induction of the third defendant after the earlier decree. The suit must be remanded for retrial to allow proper opportunity for all issues to be addressed.

Court Disposition

Appeals allowed; suit remanded for retrial.

Orders

  • Judgments of the High Court (dated 10-7-1985 and 11-10-1985, Appeal No. 477 of 1984) set aside
  • Suit remanded to learned Single Judge, Original Side, High Court of Calcutta, for retrial and disposal in accordance with law