Pavan Sachdeva, and anr. Vs. S.M.S. Pharmeceuticals Ltd. and anr - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
order 9 rule 13, order 37 rule 4 & section 115: [b.n. agrawal & g.s. singhvi, jj] ex parte decree in summary suit - set aside by trial court - interference by high court in revision - high court had not even recorded any finding on this issue - order of trial court setting aside ex parte decree not suffering from any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction - held, high court was not justified in interfering with the same. order of trial court restored for disposal of the summary suit afresh in accordance with law. 1. leave granted.2. heard learned counsel for the parties.3. the trial court passed ex-parte decree in a summary suit. the appellants filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree and also for condonation of delay. the same was registered as i.a. no.1224 of 2000. the trial court, by its order dated 23rd february, 2001, allowed the application. that order was set aside by the high court and the matter was remitted to the trial court for fresh disposal of i.a. no.1224 of 2000.4. having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, we are convinced that the high court was not justified in interfering with the order of the trial court because the same did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction. as a matter of fact, the high court has not ...2/- -2- recorded any finding on this issue.5. accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the high court is set aside and the one passed by the trial court is restored. the trial court shall now decide the summary suit afresh in accordance with law.

Judgment:
1. Leave granted.

2. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

3. The Trial Court passed ex-parte decree in a summary suit. The appellants filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree and also for condonation of delay. The same was registered as I.A. No.1224 of 2000. The Trial Court, by its order dated 23rd February, 2001, allowed the application. That order was set aside by the High Court and the matter was remitted to the Trial Court for fresh disposal of I.A. No.1224 of 2000.

4. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, we are convinced that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of the Trial Court because the same did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, the High Court has not ...2/- -2- recorded any finding on this issue.

5. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and the one passed by the Trial Court is restored. The Trial Court shall now decide the summary suit afresh in accordance with law.