/2022 INSC 0284/
[NON­REPORTABLE]
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.2708 OF 2022
M/s Jersey Developers (P) Limited & Ors. …Appellants
Versus
Canara Bank              …Respondent
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   23.04.2021   passed   by   the   High
Court   of   Judicature   at   Madras   in   Civil   Revision   Petition
No.4427 of 2015 by which the High Court has dismissed the
said   revision   application   preferred   by   the   appellants   herein
in   which  the  appellants   challenged  the   order   passed  by  the
1

learned   Trial   Court   dismissing   the   petition   to   set   aside   the
ex­parte  decree,  the   appellants   herein   –  original   defendants
have preferred the present appeal.
2. The   appellant   no.1   is   the   company   who   availed   the
loan facility from the respondent – Bank and appellant nos.
2   and   3   are   the   Directors   who   are   staying   along   with   their
family   in   United   States   of   America   (USA)   for   last   40   years.
The  respondent  ­  Bank  instituted  suit being  OS  No.3749  of
2003   before   the   learned   Trial   Court   for   recovery   of   the
amount.  The summons of the suit and the notices were sent
to   the   address   at   Chennai   which   remained   closed   as   the
appellants   herein   original   defendants   are   staying   in   USA.
The   summons   and   the   notices   were   returned   ‘unclaimed’.
Therefore,   the   Court   below   ordered   substituted   service   by
newspaper   publication.     Thereafter   the   suit   proceeded   ex­
parte   and   an   ex­parte   decree   came   to   be   passed   vide
judgment   and   decree   dated   12.02.2004.     The   Bank
2

subsequently   approached   the   Debts   Recovery   Tribunal   for
issuance   of   the   recovery   certificate.     The   DRT,   Chennai
issued   a   notice   dated   07.06.2013   in   the   name   of   the
appellants   calling   upon   them   to   pay   a   sum   of
Rs.47,21,320.53.     The   said   notice   was   also   sent   to   the
address   at   Chennai   which   property   according   to   the
appellants was already sold in the year 2002.   According to
the appellants when appellant no.2 visited India in the year
2014,   he   become   aware   of   the   recovery   certificate   on
29.03.2014 and the ex­parte decree.  The appellants herein­
original defendants therefore filed the application before the
learned   Trial   Court   to   set   aside   the   ex­parte   judgment   and
decree   dated   12.02.2004.     The   said   application   came   to   be
dismissed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court.     The   revision
application   against   the   order   passed   by   the   learned   Trial
Court   dismissing   the   application   to   set   aside   the   ex­parte
judgment   and   decree   has   also   been   dismissed   by   the   High
Court by the impugned judgment and order.
3

2.1 At   the   time   of   hearing   of   the   present   appeal   it   was
stated   at   the   Bar   that  pursuant   to   the   order  passed   by   the
High   Court,   the   petitioners   have   already   deposited   50%   of
the   decretal   amount.     This   Court   passed   an   order   dated
26.11.2021   that   on   deposit   of   the   balance   50%   of   the
decretal amount with the Registry of this Court, notice shall
be   issued.     It   is   reported   that   by   now   the   petitioners   have
deposited   the   entire   decretal   amount   (50%   with   the   High
Court and 50% with the Registry of this Court). 
3. Having heard learned counsel for the respective parties
and   considering   the   fact   that   summons/notices   issued   by
the   learned   Trial   Court   were   returned   ‘unclaimed’   as   the
same   were   sent   at   the   address   at   Chennai   and   the   house
was closed as the appellants herein original defendants were
staying   in   USA   and   thereafter   the  said   house   was   sold   and
so as to give one additional opportunity to the defendants to
defend   the   suit   and   as   by   now   entire   decretal   amount   is
4

deposited   by   the   appellants   to   show   their   bonafides   and
therefore the amount alleged to have been due and payable
to   the   Bank   is   secured,   we   are   of   the   opinion   that   if   the
appellants   are   given   one   additional   opportunity   to   defend
the suit it will be in the fitness of things and meet the ends
of justice.
4. In  view  of the  above  and for  the reasons  stated above,
the   present   appeal  succeeds.    The  impugned   judgment  and
order passed by the High Court as well as the order passed
by   the   learned   Trial   Court   dated   17.03.2015   passed   in   I.A.
No.6778   of   2014   in   OS   No.3749   of   2003   dismissing   the
application   to   set   aside   the   ex­parte   decree   are   hereby
quashed   and   set   aside.     The   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree
passed by the learned Trial Court in OS No.3749 of 2003 is
hereby   quashed   and   set   aside   and   the   original   suit   is
ordered to be restored on the file of the learned Trial Court,
5

which shall be decided and disposed of by the learned Trial
Court in accordance with law and on its own merits. 
 
4.1 Now   appellants   –   original   defendants   to   appear   before
the   learned   Trial   Court   either   in   person   or   through   their
Advocate(s)   on   10 th
  May,   2022   and   they   shall   file   their
written   statements   within   a   period   of   four   weeks   from   the
first appearance before the learned Trial Court.
4.2 Now   so   far   as   the   amount   already   deposited   by   the
appellants herein (50% of the amount pursuant to the order
passed   by   the   High   Court   and   the   balance   50%   of   the
decretal amount pursuant to the order passed by this Court)
is   concerned,   it   will   be   open   for   the   respondent   –   Bank
original   plaintiff   to   withdraw   the   same   and   keep   it   in   an
interest   bearing   fixed   deposit   which   shall   be   dealt   with
subject   to   the   ultimate   outcome   of   the   suit.     In   case   the
plaintiff   succeeds   in   the   suit   and   the   decree   is   passed   the
said amount shall be appropriated towards the decree and if
6

the   suit   is   dismissed   the   same   shall   be   repaid   to   the
defendants subject to the further  order to be passed by the
Appellate   Court.     The   Bank   shall   retain   the   amount   as
ordered   hereinabove   without   prejudice   to   the   rights   and
contentions of the respective parties in the suit.
5. Present   appeal   is   accordingly   allowed   to   the   aforesaid
extent.  However, there shall be no order as to costs.
..…………………………….J.
            [M.R. SHAH]
………………………………J.
                                                  [B.V. NAGARATHNA]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 13, 2022                                                                    
7