/2022 INSC 0781/
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CIVIL APPEAL NO.   6228   OF 2022
[Arising out of SLP (C) No.25496 of 2016]
G.N.R. Babu @ S.N. Babu               …  Appellant
Versus
Dr. B.C. Muthappa & Ors.                         …  Respondents
J U D G M E N T
ABHAY S. OKA, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The   appellant,   who   is   the   original   first   defendant,   has
taken   an   exception   to   the   judgment   and   order   dated   22 nd
March   2016   passed   by   the   High   Court   of   Karnataka   in   an
appeal   being   R.F.A.No.494   of   2016   preferred   under   Section
96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for short ‘CPC’).  
1

3. The first respondent who is the original plaintiff, filed a
suit in the City Civil Court at Bangalore (now Bengaluru) for
a declaration that he was the absolute owner of the property
subject   matter   of   the   suit   comprising   of   Site   No.28   at   BTM
Layout,   Bangalore.     Site   No.28,   according   to   the   first
respondent, consisted of lands bearing survey nos.56, 57 and
60   of   Bilkenahalli   Village   and   survey   nos.61,   71   and   72   of
N.S.   Palya   Village,   Bangalore   South   Taluk,   Bangalore.     Site
No.28   is   hereinafter   referred   as   “the   suit   property”.     Apart
from claiming a declaration of ownership, the first respondent
contended   that   a   structure   erected   by   the   appellant   on   the
suit   property   was   illegal   and   therefore,   a   decree   was   sought
for   removal   of   the   structure.     The   other   two   respondents   in
this   appeal   were   the   second   and   third   defendants
respectively.     The   learned   Judge   of   the   City   Civil   Court   at
Bangalore,   by   his   judgment   and   order   dated   19 th
  September
2015,   passed   a   declaratory   decree   by   declaring   the   first
respondent   as  the  owner  of  the  suit  property.     A  decree was
also   passed   directing   the   appellant   and   the   second
respondent to remove the structure on the suit property.  The
2

appellant and the second respondent were also restrained by
a   decree   of   perpetual   injunction   from   entering   in   the   suit
property   and   from   interfering   with   the   peaceful   possession
and enjoyment thereof by first respondent.   In paragraph 20
of   the   said   judgment,   the   learned   trial   Judge   observed   that
the  appellant  and   second   respondent   did  not  appear  despite
the service of summons and did not contest the suit.   By the
impugned judgment and order, the High Court confirmed the
decree on merits.
4. In   support   of   the   appeal,   apart   from   raising   various
contentions   on   merits   of   the   decree,   the   learned   counsel   for
the   appellant   Shri   Anand   Sanjay   M.   Nuli   urged   that
appellant’s   address   mentioned   in   the   cause   title   of   the   suit
was   incorrect   and   on   the   date   of   institution   of   the   suit,   he
was   residing   at   another   address   set   out   in   the   grounds   of
appeal.     Therefore,   the   suit   summons   was   not   duly   served
upon the appellant.
5. The   learned   counsel   appearing   for   the   appellant
submitted that the High Court proceeded on erroneous basis
that   the   issue   regarding   the   failure   to   serve   the   suit
3

summons   can   be   agitated   only   in   an   application   filed   for
setting aside   ex parte   decree by invoking Rule 13 of Order IX
of CPC.  The submission of the learned counsel appearing for
the appellant is that on the basis of the record of the suit, the
appellant could always point out that the service of summons
was not effected or that it was otherwise illegal to proceed  ex
parte   against   him.     He   would   further   submit   that   as   can   be
seen   from   the   rejoinder   filed   by   the   appellant,   a   multi­
storeyed building  consisting  of  ground  and  four  upper   floors
has   been   constructed   by   the   appellant   on   the   suit   property
long  back and the building is occupied by the purchasers of
the   premises   therein.   He   submitted   that   there   is   a   very
drastic   decree   passed   for   demolition   of   the   said   building
constructed   on   the   suit   property   without   impleading   the
purchasers   of   the   premises   therein   as   parties.     He   would,
therefore,   urge   that   by   setting   aside   the   decree   of   the   trial
court, the suit be remanded for fresh adjudication.
6. Shri   Arvind   Kamath,   the   learned   senior   counsel
appearing for the first respondent­plaintiff submitted that the
third   respondent­Bangalore   Development   Authority   was   the
4

owner of the suit property and that the first respondent is the
allottee   of   the   suit   property   from   the   third   respondent.     He
submitted   that   the   sale   deed   on   the   basis   of   which   the
appellant   is   claiming   ownership   is   in   respect   of   some   other
property, as can be seen from the description of the property
in   the   sale   deed.     The   learned   senior   counsel   relied   upon   a
decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Bhanu   Kumar   Jain   v.
Archana Kumar & Anr. 1
  in support of his contention that in
an appeal against an  ex parte  decree, the appellant­defendant
can   challenge   the   decree   only   on   merits.     If   he   wants   to
challenge the decree either on the ground that summons was
not duly served to him or that he was prevented by sufficient
cause   from   appearing   in   the   suit,   his   remedy   is   to   apply
under   Rule   13   of   Order   IX   of   CPC.     He   also   relied   upon
another   decision   of   this   Court   in   the   case   of   Bhivchandra
Shankar More  v.  Balu Gangaram More & Ors. 2
  in which the
decision of this Court in the case of  Bhanu Kumar Jain 1
 was
followed.  He submitted that it is not open for the appellant to
challenge   the   decree   of   the   trial   court   on   the   ground   that
1  (2005) 1 SCC 787
2  (2019) 6 SCC 387
5

summons   was   not   duly   served   as   he   has   not   filed   an
application   for   setting   aside   the   decree.     He   submitted   that
there is a concurrent finding of the trial court and High Court
that   the   first   respondent   has   established   his   title   and
ownership   over   the   suit   property   and   that   the   building
constructed thereon is completely illegal.   The learned senior
counsel,   therefore,   urged   that   the   present   appeal   be
dismissed.  
7. We   have   given   careful   consideration   to   the
submissions.     Firstly,   we   will   deal   with   the   scope   of
adjudication in an appeal preferred under Section 96 of CPC
by   a   defendant   against   whom   the   trial   court   has   proceeded
ex parte  and a decree has been passed.  In the case of  Bhanu
Kumar   Jain 1
  a   Bench   of   three   Hon’ble   Judges   of   this  Court
dealt   with   a   case   where   an   application   for   setting   aside   ex
parte  decree was filed by a defendant under Rule 13 of Order
IX   of   CPC.     The   said   application   was   dismissed.     Even   an
appeal   preferred   against   the   order   of   dismissal   of   the   said
application   was   dismissed.     An   appeal   under   Section   96   of
CPC   was   also   preferred   by   the   said   defendant.     The
6

submission before this Court was that   the subject matter of
the   application   under   Rule   13   of   Order   IX   of   CPC   and   the
subject matter of the appeal against decree being the same, it
is against  the public policy  to  allow two parallel proceedings
to continue simultaneously.  In paragraph 23 of the decision,
this   Court   noted   that   the   question   before   it   was   whether   an
appeal  against   ex   parte   decree   was   maintainable   despite   the
fact   that   an   application   under   Rule   13   of   Order   IX   of   CPC
was dismissed.  Paragraphs 24 to 27 of the said decision read
thus :
“ 24.   An appeal against an ex parte decree in terms
of Section 96(2) of the Code could be filed on the
following grounds
(i) the   materials   on   record   brought   on   record   in
the ex parte proceedings in the suit by the plaintiff
would not entail a decree in his favour, and
(ii) the suit could not have been posted for ex
parte hearing. 
25.   In   an   application   under   Order   9   Rule   13   of   the
Code,   however,   apart   from   questioning   the
correctness or otherwise of an order posting the case
for   ex   parte   hearing,   it   is   open   to   the   defendant   to
contend that he had sufficient and cogent reasons for
not being able to attend the hearing of the suit on the
relevant date.
7

26.   When   an   ex   parte   decree   is   passed,   the
defendant (apart from filing a review petition and
a suit for setting aside the ex parte decree on the
ground of fraud) has two clear options, one, to file
an   appeal   and   another   to   file   an   application   for
setting   aside   the   order   in   terms   of   Order   9   Rule
13 of the Code.  He can take recourse to both the
proceedings   simultaneously   but   in   the   event   the
appeal   is   dismissed   as   a   result   whereof   the   ex
parte decree passed by the trial court merges with
the   order   passed   by   the   appellate   court,   having
regard   to   Explanation   appended   to   Order   9   Rule
13   of   the   Code   a   petition   under   Order   9   Rule   13
would not be maintainable.  However, Explanation
I appended to the said provision does not suggest
that the converse is also true. 
27.   In   an   appeal   filed   in   terms   of   Section   96   of   the
Code   having   regard  to   Section   105   thereof,   it   is   also
permissible   for   an   appellant   to   raise  a   contention   as
regards   correctness   or   otherwise   of   an   interlocutory
order   passed   in   the   suit,   subject   to   the   conditions
laid down therein.”
[Emphasis added]
This   Court   held   that   though   after   dismissal   of   an   appeal
under Section 96 of CPC against   ex parte   decree, application
under   Rule   13   of   Order   IX   of   CPC   will   not   be   maintainable,
there is no bar on unsuccessful defendant adopting both the
remedies   simultaneously.     In   such   a   case,   if   the   regular
appeal   against   the   decree   is   dismissed,   obviously   the
application under Rule 13 of Order IX of CPC cannot proceed.
8

The reason is that explanation to Rule 13 of Order IX of CPC
lays   down   that   where   there   has   been   an   appeal   against   a
decree  passed   ex   parte   and  the   appeal  has   been  disposed  of
on any ground other than withdrawal, application for setting
aside   ex   parte   decree   will   not   lie.   However,   in   the   event   an
application   under   Rule   13   of   Order   IX   of   CPC   is   dismissed,
the defendant can prosecute the appeal against the decree as
a   right   to   prefer   appeal   under   Section   96   cannot   be   taken
away   in   absence   of   any   express   provision   to   the   contrary   in
CPC.     In   paragraph   38   of   the   aforesaid   decision,   this   Court
held that when application under Rule 13 of Order IX of CPC
filed   by   a   defendant   is   dismissed,   the   defendant   cannot   be
permitted to raise a contention as regards the correctness or
otherwise   of   the   order   posting   the   suit   for   ex   parte   hearing
and/or   existence of  a sufficient cause  for   non­appearance  of
the defendant.
8. In   this   case,   the   question   is   when   the   defendant   did
not   avail   the   remedy   under   Rule   13   of   Order   IX   of   CPC,
whether   it   is   open   for   him   to   agitate   in   the   regular   appeal
against the decree that the trial court had no justification for
9

proceeding   ex   parte   against   the   appellant.     In   such   a   case,
though the appellant would not be entitled to lead evidence in
appeal   for   making   out   a   sufficient   cause   for   his   absence
before the trial court, he can always argue on the basis of the
record   of   the   suit   that   either   the   suit   summons   was   not
served   upon   him   or   that   even   otherwise   also,   the   trial   court
was   not   justified   in   proceeding   ex   parte   against   him.     The
reason   is   that   under   Section   105   of   CPC,   when   a   decree   is
appealed   from,   any   error,   defect   or   irregularity   in   any   order
affecting the decision of the case can be set forth as a ground
of objection in the Memorandum of Appeal.   Thus, in such a
case, the appellant can always urge in an appeal against the
decree   that   an   interim   or   interlocutory   order   passed   during
the pendency of the suit affecting the decision of the case was
illegal.     Therefore,   the   appellant,   while   challenging   ex   parte
decree   by   filing   an   appeal,   can   always   point   out   from   the
record of the trial court that the order passed to proceed with
the suit  ex parte  against him was illegal.  As held in the case
of  Bhanu Kumar Jain 1
, only when the application made by a
defendant under Rule 13 of Order IX of CPC is dismissed that
10

such   a   defendant   cannot   agitate   in   the   appeal   against   ex
parte   decree   that   the   order   directing   that   the   suit   shall
proceed   ex   parte   was   illegal   or   incorrect.     However,   in   this
case, the appellant has not filed application under Rule 13 of
Order IX of CPC.  Therefore, such a contention can be raised
by him.
9. Now   coming   to   the   facts   of   the   case   in   hand,   we   find
that   there   is   a   noting   in   the   order   sheet   of   the   trial   court
dated   27 th
  October   2014   that   the   summons   issued   to   the
appellant and second respondent was returned unserved with
the   remark   that   their   respective   premises   were   locked.
However, on 05 th
  January 2015, the trial court ordered issue
of summons by Registered Post Acknowledgement Due at the
same   address.     The   order   sheet   of   05 th
  March   2015   records
that   the   summons   sent   to   the   appellant   and   the   second
respondent   by   post   was   returned   with   the   remarks
“Intimation   Delivered”.     Thus,   the   record   shows   that   an
attempt to serve summons by the regular mode failed as the
premises of the appellant were found to be locked.   The trial
court did not direct affixing of a copy of the summons on the
11

outer   door   of   the   premises   in   which   the   appellant   was
residing, as required by Rule 17 of Order V of CPC.   Without
verifying   whether   the   address   of   the   appellant,   as   shown   in
the cause title of the suit was correct, summons was ordered
to   be   served   through   Registered   Post   AD.     Therefore,   in   our
view,   there   was   no   warrant   for   proceeding   ex   parte   against
the appellant.
10. Moreover,   we   find   from   the   rejoinder   that   a   multi­
storeyed   building   consisting   of   ground   plus   four   floors   has
been   constructed   on   the   suit   property   and   the   residential
premises   in   the   building   on   the   suit   property   have   been
occupied   by   different   persons.     As   noted   earlier,   there   is   a
decree   passed   for   the   demolition   of   the   building   constructed
on   the   suit   property.     This   is   one   more   reason   why   we   are
inclined to accept the prayer for remand of the suit.  The suit
was   instituted   in   the   year   2014.     As   a   result   of   passing   an
order   of   remand,   the   disposal   of   the   suit   filed   by   the   first
respondent will be delayed.  Therefore, the appellant will have
to be saddled with costs quantified at Rs.2,00,000/­ (Rupees
two   lacs   only).     Though   we   are   not   making   any   adjudication
12

on   the   issue   whether   the   occupants   of   the   building   are
necessary parties to the suit, a liberty will have to be granted
to   the   first   respondent,   if   he   so   desires,   to   implead   the
persons   in   possession   of   the   premises   in   the   building
constructed on the suit property.
11. Accordingly, the  present  appeal  is partly  allowed.   The
impugned judgment and order dated 22 nd
 March 2016 passed
by   the   High   Court   as   well   as   the   impugned   judgment   and
decree   dated   19 th
  September   2015   passed   by   the   learned
Judge   of   the   City   Civil   Court   at   Bangalore   are   hereby   set
aside.  Original Suit No.6610 of 2014 is restored to the file of
the City Civil Court, Bangalore.
12. The   parties   to   the   appeal   shall   mark   their   presence
before   the   learned   Principal   Judge,   City   Civil   Court   at
Bangalore on Monday, the 26 th
 September 2022 at 10:30 a.m.
It will be open to the Principal Judge of the City Civil Court to
transfer the suit for disposal to any of the Judges of the City
Civil   Court.     The   appellant   shall   file   his   written   statement
within   maximum   period   of   one   month   from   26 th
  September
2022.     Under   no   circumstances,   the   appellant   shall   be
13

granted   extension   of   time   to   file   written   statement.
Considering the fact that the suit is of the year 2014, the trial
court   shall   endeavour   to   give   necessary   priority   to   the
disposal of the suit.
13. The   first   respondent   shall   be   entitled   to   costs
quantified   at   Rs.2,00,000/­   (Rupees   two   lacs   only)   from   the
appellant.     The   payment   of   costs   shall   be   the   condition
precedent.     The   appellant   shall   either   directly   pay   the   costs
amount   to   the   first   respondent   and   produce   the   receipt
thereof   within   four   weeks   from   today   or   shall   deposit   the
costs   amount   with   the   City   Civil   Court   within   four   weeks
from today. 
.………..…………………J.
       [Ajay Rastogi]
.………..…………………J.
[Abhay S. Oka]
New Delhi;
September 06, 2022. 
14