REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 4151 of 2022 
Nanda Dulal Pradhan & Anr.             ...Appellants 
Versus  
Dibakar Pradhan & Anr.                          ...Respondents
J U D G M E N T 
M. R. Shah, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   dated   16.05.2018   passed   by   the   High
Court of Orissa at Cuttack in C.M.P. No.324 of 2018 by which
the High Court has observed and held that mere setting aside
the ex­parte judgment and decree would serve no purpose as
the defendants cannot lead evidence in the absence of written
statement   filed   by   them   and   consequently   setting   aside   the
order   passed   by   the   First   Appellate   Court   who   allowed   the
1

appellants herein – original defendant nos. 2 and 3 to adduce
the   evidence   apart   from   setting   aside   ex­parte   judgment   and
decree,   the   original   defendant   nos.   2   &   3   have   preferred   the
present appeal.
2. That   the   respondent   no.1   herein   –   original   plaintiff
instituted the suit in the Court of learned Civil Judge (Junior
Division),   Jaleswar   being   TS   No.317   of   2003,   for   declaration
and   title.     The   appellants   –   original   defendant   nos.   2   &   3
moved   an   impleadment   application   in   the   suit   which   was
allowed.     That   thereafter   the   application   under   Order   I   Rule
10 of the CPC  was allowed on 20.02.2004.   The learned Trial
Court   fixed   the   next   date  as  27.02.2004  for   filing  the   written
statement.   The appellants herein – original defendant nos. 2
& 3 (hereinafter referred to as “original defendant nos. 2 & 3”)
sought   time   to   file   the   written   statement   on   various   dates.
However,   they   failed   to   file   the   written   statement   even   after
availing   several   opportunities.     The   original   defendant   nos.   2
&   3   also   remained   absent   on   number   of   dates.     Therefore,
neither  did they  file the  written  statement  in the suit nor  did
they   appear   before   the   learned   Trial   Court.     Thereafter   the
2

learned   Trial   Court   passed   an   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree
dated   31.08.2004.     In   the   above   circumstances,   defendant
nos. 2 & 3 filed the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the
CPC   to   set   aside   the   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree.     The
learned Trial Court dismissed the said application and refused
to   set   aside   the   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree.     Hence
defendant   nos.   2   &   3   preferred   the   appeal   before   the   First
Appellate   Court.     The   First   Appellate   Court   allowed   the   said
appeal   by   setting   aside   the   order   passed   by   the   learned   Trial
Court   dismissing   the   application   to   set   aside   the   ex­parte
judgment   and   decree.     The   First   Appellate   Court   also   passed
an order to restore the suit to file and thereafter to dispose of
the suit after affording sufficient opportunity to the parties to
adduce   their   respective   evidence   and   rebuttal   evidence.
Feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the order passed by the
First Appellate Court in allowing the appeal and setting aside
the ex­parte judgment and decree and the order directing that
the matter be disposed of afresh in accordance with law after
affording   adequate   opportunity   to   the   parties   to   adduce   their
respective evidence and rebuttal evidence, the original plaintiff
filed   the   present   petition   under   Articles   226   and   227   of   the
3

Constitution of India before the High Court.  By the impugned
judgment   and   order   and   without   considering   and/or
observing   anything   on   the   findings   recorded   by   the   First
Appellate Court on whether there was a sufficient cause made
out   to   set   aside   the   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree,   the   High
Court   has   set   aside   the   order   passed   by   the   First   Appellate
Court   setting   aside   the   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree   solely
on the ground that as no written statement was filed on behalf
of   the   defendant   nos.   2   &   3   the   reopening   of   the   suit   would
become futile.  Thereby the High Court has set aside the order
passed by the First Appellate Court setting aside the ex­parte
judgment and decree.
  
2.1 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the   impugned
judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court,   the   original
defendant nos. 2 & 3 have preferred the present appeal. 
3. Having   heard   learned   counsel   for   the   respective   parties
and considering the order passed by the First Appellate Court
setting aside the ex­parte judgment and decree and observing
that   on   restoration   of   the   suit   the   same   be   disposed   of   after
affording   opportunities   to   the   parties   to   adduce   their
4

respective   evidence   and   rebuttal   evidence,   the   same   was
absolutely in consonance with the law laid down by this Court
in the case of  Sangram Singh versus Election Tribunal, AIR
1955   SC   425   and   Arjun   Singh   versus   Mohindra   Kumar,
AIR 1964 SC 993.
3.1 At   this   stage   it  is  required   to   be   noted   that   as  such   the
First Appellate Court gave specific findings while setting aside
the ex­parte judgment and decree that the defendant nos. 2 &
3   have   made   out   a   sufficient   cause   for   setting   aside   the   ex­
parte judgment and decree.   But while passing the impugned
judgment   and   order   the   High   Court   has   not   at   all   dealt   with
and   considered   the   findings   recorded   by   the   First   Appellate
Court,   recorded   while   setting   aside   ex­parte   judgment   and
decree.  The High Court has set aside the order passed by the
First   Appellate   Court   solely   on   the   ground   that   as   the
defendant   nos.   2   &   3   did   not   file   the   written   statement   and
contested   the   suit,   the   reopening   of   the   suit   would   become
futile.     However,   as   observed   and   held   by   this   Court   in   the
case   of   Sangram   Singh   (supra)   on   setting   aside   the   ex­parte
decree   and   on   restoration   of   the   suit   the   parties   to   the   suit
5

shall   be   put   to   the   same   position   as   they   were   at   the   time
when   the   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree   was   passed   and   the
defendants may not be permitted to file the written statement
as no written statement was filed.  However, at the same time
they   can   be   permitted   to   participate   in   the   suit   proceedings
and cross­examine the witnesses.     In that view of the matter
the   impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court
is unsustainable.  Still, on setting aside the ex­parte judgment
and   decree,   though   the   defendants   who   had   not   filed   the
written  statement, can  be permitted to  participate in  the  suit
and   cross­examine   the   witnesses.     Therefore,   the   High   Court
is not right in observing that as no written statement was filed
by   the   defendants,   the   reopening   of   the   suit   by   setting   aside
ex­parte judgment and decree will become futile.  As observed
hereinabove   the   High   Court   has   not   at   all   observed   anything
on   the   correctness   of   the   order   passed   by   the   First   Appellate
Court   setting   aside   the   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree   on
merits.
4. In view of the above and for the reason stated above the
impugned   judgment   and   order   passed   by   the   High   Court   is
6

hereby   set   aside.     The   order   passed   by   the   First   Appellate
Court   setting   aside   the   ex­parte   judgment   and   decree   and
restoring the suit is hereby restored.   However, it is observed
that on restoration of the suit, the defendant nos. 2 & 3 shall
not   be   permitted   to   file   the   written   statement,   as   though
number   of   opportunities   were   given   earlier,   they   did   not   file
the   written   statement.     However,   at   the   same   time   they   may
be permitted to participate in  the suit and cross­examine the
witnesses and make submissions on merits.  Present appeal is
partly   allowed   to   the   aforesaid   extent.   However,   in   the   facts
and   circumstances   of   the   case   there   shall   be   no   order   as   to
costs.
…………………………………J.
             (M. R. SHAH)
…………………………………J.
                                                 (B.V. NAGARATHNA)
New Delhi, 
July 11, 2022.
7