Y. P. LELE versus MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

Y. P. LELE versus MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD. & ORS.

The explanation to Order XVII Rule 2 CPC applies only to the party which has led evidence or a substantial portion thereof and thereafter fails to appear; it could not be invoked against defendants who had not led any evidence, and therefore the High Court erred in holding that an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was not maintainable; the High Court's order was set aside and the Trial Court directed to decide the suit on merits after giving opportunities to the parties.

Parties
Appellant: Y. P. LELE; Respondent: MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.; Respondent: MIRAJ ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD.
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
16 August 2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal No.5155 of 2023 / On Appeal From the Judgment and Order Dated 27.06.2018 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.1488 of 2015
Outcome
Appeal allowed; impugned order of the High Court set aside.
Legal Topics
Order XVII Rule 2 CPC, Order IX Rule 13 CPC, Ex Parte Decree, Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree, Vakalatnama Withdrawal, Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5
Civil Procedure Order XVII Rule 2 CPC Order IX Rule 13 CPC Ex Parte Decree Setting Aside Ex Parte Decree Vakalatnama Withdrawal Limitation Act, 1963 Section 5

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Y. P. LELE

Appellant

MAHARASHTRA STATE ELECTRICITY DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD.

Respondent

MIRAJ ELECTRIC SUPPLY CO. LTD.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal No.5155 of 2023 / On Appeal From the Judgment and Order Dated 27.06.2018 of the Bombay High Court in Writ Petition No.1488 of 2015

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the explanation to Order XVII Rule 2 CPC could be invoked against a defendant who had not led any evidence
  2. 2 Whether an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex parte decree was maintainable in the facts of the case
  3. 3 Whether the Trial Court erred in proceeding ex parte after the defendants' counsel withdrew Vakalatnama without issuing notice to engage other counsel

Ratio Decidendi

The explanation to Order XVII Rule 2 CPC applies only to the party which has led evidence or a substantial portion thereof and thereafter fails to appear; it could not be invoked against defendants who had not led any evidence, and therefore the High Court erred in holding that an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was not maintainable; the High Court's order was set aside and the Trial Court directed to decide the suit on merits after giving opportunities to the parties.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; impugned order of the High Court set aside.

Orders

  • The appeal is allowed and the impugned order of the High Court dated 27.06.2018 is set aside.
  • The Trial Court shall proceed to decide Special Civil Suit No.125 of 1988 on its own merits after giving due opportunities to the parties and strictly in accordance with law.