/2022 INSC 0384/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3641 OF 2022
Sudhir Ranjan Patra (Dead) thr. LRs. & Anr.      ..Appellant (S)
Versus
Himansu Sekhar Srichandan & Ors.                    ..Respondent (S)
With 
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 3642 OF 2022
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment and order dated 04.02.2022 passed by the High
Court   of   Orissa   at   Cuttak   in   CMP   No.   1423/2019,   by
which,   though   the   High   Court   has   confirmed   the   order
passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court   setting   aside   the   ex­
parte   decree in exercise of powers under Order IX Rule 13
of   Code   of   Civil   Procedure   (CPC),   the   High   Court   has
observed and held that appellants herein – defendant Nos.
2 and 3 cannot be permitted to file their written statement,
1

the appellants herein – original defendant Nos. 1 to 3 have
preferred the present appeals.
2. The   facts   leading   to   the   present   appeals   in   a   nutshell   are
as under: ­
2.1 That respondent No. 1 herein – original plaintiff instituted
a   suit   for   declaration   of   his   right,   title,   interest   and
possession over the suit schedule land being Civil Suit No.
1783/2011.   The   original   plaintiff   also   prayed   for   a   decree
to declare that original defendant No. 2 has no authority to
alienate   the   suit   land   and   also   to   declare   that   the   two
registered sale deeds bearing Nos. 3530 and 3533 of 2000
are   not   binding   on   the   plaintiff   as   well   as   proforma
defendant   Nos.   4   and   5.   A   relief   of   permanent   injunction
against original defendant Nos. 1 to 3 was also sought for.
The   appellants   herein   –   original   defendant   Nos.   2   and   3
appeared   in   the   suit   on   20.03.20212   and   filed   a   petition
for time to file their written statement. However, in spite of
several   adjournments,   they   did   not   file   written   statement.
That the appellants herein – original defendant Nos. 2 and
3 did not file their written statement. Thereafter, the issues
2

were   framed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court.   On   27.03.2017,
the plaintiff filed their evidence in examination in chief by
an   affidavit.   On   04.07.2017,   when   the   suit   was   called   on
for   hearing,   appellants   herein   –   original   defendant   Nos.   2
and   3   were   absent   and   therefore,   were   set   ex­parte.
Thereafter,   on   behalf   of   the   plaintiff,   PW­1   came   to   be
examined.   The   case   was   posted   to   15.07.2017   for
argument. On that date, original defendant Nos. 1 to 3 also
filed an application for adjournment for which the suit was
adjourned   to   17.07.2017,   on   which   date,   the   argument
was heard and judgment  was pronounced on 18.07.2017.
The learned Trial Court passed an ex­parte decree. 
Subsequently,   the   appellants   herein   –   original
defendant   Nos.   2   and   3   filed   CMA   No.   31/2018   under
Order   IX   Rule   13   of   CPC   to   set   aside   the   ex­parte   decree
along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act to condone the delay in filing the CMA. The appellants
herein   –   original   defendant   Nos.   2   and   3   also   prayed   to
allow the filing of written statement and to take up the suit
3

on   merits.   By   order   dated   05.12.2019,   the   learned   Trial
Court allowed the CMA by condoning the delay.     
2.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   order   dated
05.12.2019   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court   allowing
CMA No. 31/2018, the original plaintiff – respondent No. 1
herein filed CMP No. 1423/2019 before the High Court. By
the impugned judgment and order, though the High Court
has confirmed the order passed by the learned Trial Court
condoning the delay and setting aside the ex­parte decree,
the   High   Court   has   also   passed   an   order   that   on   setting
aside the ex­parte decree and  consequently  the suit being
restored   to   file,   defendant   Nos.   2   and   3   cannot   be
permitted to file their written statement and that they can
only   take   part   in   the   hearing   of   the   suit   without
propounding   their   own   case.   The   High   Court   has   also
observed   that   they   can   advance   their   argument   on   the
basis of the materials available on record only. 
2.3 Feeling   aggrieved   with   the   judgment   and   order   passed   by
the   High   Court   to   the   extent   of   observing   that   defendant
Nos.   2   and   3   cannot   be   permitted   to   file   their   written
4

statement and that they can only take part in the hearing
of   the   suit   without   propounding   their   own   case,   original
defendant   Nos.   1   to   3   –   appellants   herein   have   preferred
the present appeals.      
3. Learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of   the   appellants
herein   –   original   defendant   Nos.   2   and   3   has   vehemently
submitted that in the facts and circumstances of the case
the High Court has committed a grave error in passing the
order   that   appellants   herein   ­   defendant   Nos.   2   and   3
cannot be permitted to file their written statement.  
3.1 It is vehemently submitted that once the suit was restored
to file by setting aside the ex­parte decree which has been
upheld   by   the   High   Court,   thereafter,   it   was   not   open   for
the   High   Court   to   pass   a   further   order   that   on   setting
aside   the   ex­parte   decree   and   restoring   the   suit   to   file,
defendant   Nos.   2   and   3   cannot   be   permitted   to   file   their
written statement. 
3.2 It   is   submitted   that   what   was   challenged   before   the   High
Court   was   the   order   passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court
5

condoning the delay and setting aside the ex­parte decree.
It  is  submitted  that   therefore,  the  impugned  order  passed
by   the   High   Court   observing   that   defendant   Nos.   2   and   3
cannot   be   permitted   to   file   their   written   statement   is
beyond   the   scope   and   ambit   of   CMP   filed   before   the   High
Court.
3.3 It   is   submitted   that   once   the   suit   was   restored   to   file   by
setting aside the ex­parte decree and no order was passed
by   the   learned   Trial   Court   on   whether   the   written
statement   be   permitted   to   be   taken   on   record   or   not,   the
High   Court   ought   not   to   have   observed   anything   on   the
same and ought to have left it to the learned Trial Court. 
3.4 It   is   submitted   that   in   the   present   case   no   order   was
passed   by   the   learned   Trial   Court   on   whether   the   written
statement   be   taken   on   record   or   not,   the   decisions   relied
upon by the High Court in the case of  Sangram Singh Vs.
Election Tribunal, Kotah and another ; AIR 1955 SC 425
and   Arjun   Singh   Vs.   Mohindra   Kumar   and   others ;   AIR
6

1964   SC   993   shall   not   be   applicable   to   the   facts   of   the
case on hand.      
4. Present   appeals   are   vehemently   opposed   by   Shri   Nitesh
Bhandari,   learned   counsel   appearing   on   behalf   of
respondent No. 1 herein – original plaintiff. 
4.1 It   is   submitted   that   despite   the   fact   that   a   number   of
opportunities were given  to  defendant  Nos.  2  and  3  to  file
their  written  statement  between  2012 to   2017  (till  the  ex­
parte   decree   was   passed).   Hence,   the   High   Court   was
justified   in   passing   the   impugned   order   by   observing   that
defendant   Nos.   2   and   3   cannot   be   permitted   to   file   their
written statement on setting aside the ex­parte decree. 
4.2 It   is   submitted   that   as   held   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of
Sangram Singh   (supra) and   Arjun Singh   (supra) when an
ex­parte decree is set aside and the suit is restored to file,
the   defendants   cannot   be   relegated   back   to   the   position
prior   to   the   date   of   hearing   of   the   suit   and   he   would   be
debarred from filing any written statement in the suit. It is
submitted   that   therefore,   the   impugned   order   passed   by
the   High   Court   is   absolutely   in   consonance   with   the   law
7

laid   down   by   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Sangram   Singh
(supra) and  Arjun Singh  (supra).    
5. We have heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
respective parties at length. 
6. At   the   outset   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that   when   the
appellants – original defendant Nos. 2 and 3 filed CMA No.
31/2018   under   Order   IX   Rule   13   of   CPC   they   prayed   to
condone   the   delay   as   well   as   to   set   aside   the   ex­parte
decree and also to allow filing of the written statement and
to take up the suit on merits. By order dated 05.12.2019,
the   learned   Trial   Court   allowed   CMA   No.   31/2018   and
condoned   the   delay   and   set   aside   the   ex­parte   decree
subject   to   cost   of   Rs.   25,000/­   each   to   be   paid   to   the
plaintiff. From order dated 05.12.2019, it does not appear
that   any   further   order   was   passed   by   the   learned   Trial
Court   on   whether   by   setting   aside   the   ex­parte   decree,
defendant   Nos.   2   and   3   may   be   permitted   to   file   written
statement   or   not.   The   order   passed   by   the   learned   Trial
Court   condoning   the   delay   and   setting   aside   the   ex­parte
8

decree   has   been   confirmed   by   the   High   Court   by   passing
the   impugned   judgment   and   order.   However,   the   High
Court   has   observed   that   on   setting   aside   the   ex­parte
decree and restoring the suit to file, defendant Nos. 2 and
3   cannot   be   permitted   to   file   the   written   statement.
Reliance  is  placed  upon  the decisions  of this  Court in  the
case   of   Sangram   Singh   (supra)   and   Arjun   Singh   (supra).
However,   it   is   true   that   as   per   the   law   laid   down   by   this
Court   in   the   case   of   Sangram   Singh   (supra)   and   Arjun
Singh  (supra) when an ex­parte decree is set aside and the
suit is restored to file, the defendants cannot be relegated
to the position prior to the date of hearing of the suit when
he   was   placed   ex­parte.   He   would   be   debarred   from   filing
any   written   statement   in   the   suit,   but   then   he   can
participate   in   the   hearing   of   the   suit   inasmuch   cross­
examine   the   witness   of   the   plaintiff   and   address
arguments.   However,   in   our   view,   in   the   facts   and
circumstances   of   the   case,   the   decisions   of   this   Court   in
the   case   of   Sangram   Singh   (supra)   and   Arjun   Singh
(supra) shall not be fully applicable. In the present case by
9

filing the CMA under Order IX Rule 13, appellants herein –
original   defendant   Nos.   2   and   3   not   only   prayed   to   set
aside the ex­parte decree but also prayed to allow them to
file   written   statement.   As   observed   above,   there   was   no
order   and/or   decision   by   the   learned   Trial   Court   on   the
second prayer, namely, to allow defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to
file   written   statement   or   not.   Therefore,   once   the   ex­parte
decree is set aside and the suit is restored to file and even
as per  the  decisions of  this  Court  in  the case of   Sangram
Singh   (supra)   and   Arjun   Singh   (supra)   the   defendants
cannot   be   relegated   back   to   the   position   prior   to   the   date
of hearing of the suit in that case also, it should have been
left   to   the   learned   Trial   Court   to   consider   the   prayer   of
defendant   Nos.   2   and   3   whether   to   allow   them   to   file
written   statement   or   not,   which   was   also   prayed   in   CMA
No. 31/2018. 
As observed hereinabove, there was no order passed by
the   learned   Trial   Court   on   the   specific   prayer   made   by
defendant   Nos.   2   and   3   to   allow   them   to   file   written
statement.   The   learned   Trial   Court   while   passing   order
10

dated 05.12.2019 condoned the delay and set aside the ex­
parte   decree   and   the   said   order   of   condonation   of   delay
and   setting   aside   the   ex­parte   decree   was   the   subject
matter   before   the   High   Court.   Therefore,   the   further
observations made by  the High Court that defendant Nos.
2 and 3 cannot be permitted to file their written statement
can be said to be beyond the scope and ambit of the CMP
filed  before  the  High  Court. Under  the  circumstances,  the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court to
the extent of observing that defendant Nos. 2 and 3 cannot
be   permitted   to   file   their   written   statement   is
unsustainable   and   the   issue/question   whether   defendant
Nos. 2 and 3 may be allowed to file their written statement
or   not,   shall   have   to   be   remanded   to   the   learned   Trial
Court. 
   
7. In view of the above and for the reasons stated above, the
impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court to
the   extent  of  observing  that  though  the  ex­parte  decree  is
set   aside,   defendant   Nos.   2   and   3   cannot   be   permitted   to
file   their   written   statement   is   hereby   quashed   and   set
11

aside.   The   learned   Trial   Court   to   consider   the   prayer   of
defendant   Nos.   2   and   3   whether   to   allow/permit   them   to
file   their   written   statement   or   not   and   as   and   when   such
question/issue is considered by the learned Trial Court, it
will   be   open   for   respondent   No.   1   –   original   plaintiff   to
resist the same and the learned Trial Court to consider the
question/issue   whether   on   setting   aside   the   ex­parte
decree, defendant Nos. 2 and 3 may be allowed/permitted
to file their written statement, in accordance with law and
on   its   own   merits   for   which   we   have   not   expressed
anything in favour of either party. The learned Trial Court
to   consider   the   issue/question   with   respect   to   the   prayer
of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 to allow them to file their written
statement   within   a   period   of   three   months   from   the   first
date of hearing  of the suit, which shall be within a period
of one month from today. The present appeals are allowed
to the aforesaid extent. In the facts of the case, there shall
be no order as to costs.  
…………………………………J.
                  (M. R. SHAH)
New Delhi,                                        …………………………………J.
17 th
 May, 2022                                 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
12

13