What did the Supreme Court decide?

The Court set aside the High Court judgment and remanded the suit because the trial court wrongly proceeded ex parte due to improper service of summons.

Can a defendant directly appeal an ex parte decree under Section 96 CPC?

Yes. A defendant may file an appeal under Section 96(2) CPC against an ex parte decree and argue that the trial court erred in proceeding ex parte.

Is Order IX Rule 13 CPC also available along with Section 96?

Yes. Both remedies are available. But if the appeal is dismissed, the Order IX Rule 13 application becomes non-maintainable due to the explanation to Rule 13.

Why was service of summons found defective?

Summons returned with remarks like “premises locked” or “intimation delivered.” Order V Rule 17 (affixation) was not followed before proceeding ex parte.

What practical lesson does this case give?

Courts must ensure proper service before passing ex parte decrees, especially where demolition or serious consequences are involved; else remand may follow.

GNR Babu @ SN Babu v. Dr. BC Muthappa & Ors. (2022)

Supreme Court of India India 2-Judge Bench (Rastogi & Oka, JJ.) 2022 Civil Procedure (CPC) ~7 min read

CASE_TITLE Author: Gulzar Hashmi India PRIMARY_KEYWORDS: Section 96 CPC, Ex Parte Decree SECONDARY_KEYWORDS: Order IX Rule 13, Order V Rule 17 PUBLISH_DATE: 05-Dec-2024

Quick Summary

This case explains what a defendant can do when a trial court passes an ex parte decree. The Supreme Court said an appeal under Section 96(2) CPC is a valid route. The Court also checked whether summons were properly served. Because service was defective, the decree could not stand and the matter had to go back for a fair hearing.

Appeal under Section 96(2) CPC is maintainable even against an ex parte decree.
Order IX Rule 13 CPC is an additional remedy; both can be pursued, with limits.
If service of summons is faulty, proceeding ex parte is not justified.

Issues

Should an appeal under Section 96 CPC be allowed where the trial court passed an ex parte decree on improper service?

Rules

Section 96 CPC — includes appeal against an ex parte decree.
Order IX Rule 13 CPC — separate remedy to set aside an ex parte decree.
Order V Rule 17 CPC — affixation procedure; must be followed before treating service as complete.

Explanation to Order IX Rule 13: if the appeal is dismissed, the Rule 13 application is not maintainable.

Facts (Timeline)

View images

Suit Filed

Title & Possession Dispute

Plaintiff sought declaration of ownership of Site No. 28 (BTM Layout, Bengaluru) and removal of an allegedly illegal structure.

19 Sep 2015

Trial Court Decree

Trial court decreed in favour of the plaintiff; directed demolition; restrained defendants by injunction. Defendants absent; case proceeded ex parte.

High Court (Impugned)

Decree Upheld

High Court affirmed on merits.

Appeal

Section 96 CPC

Defendant appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing improper service and unjustified ex parte order.

Supreme Court

Service Found Defective

Summons returned as “premises locked/intimation delivered”. No proper affixation under Order V Rule 17. Case remanded.

Timeline: filing, ex parte decree, appeal, and remand

Arguments

Appellant (Defendant)

Service was defective; trial court rushed to proceed ex parte.
Order V Rule 17 steps (affixation) not followed.
Given the demolition decree and multiple occupants, a full contest was necessary.

Respondents (Plaintiff & Ors.)

Trial court decree was correct on merits.
Non-appearance was due to defendants’ own conduct.
High Court rightly affirmed the findings.

Judgment

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It set aside the High Court judgment and the trial court’s ex parte decree, and remanded the suit for proper adjudication after ensuring valid service of summons.

Improper service cannot lead to an ex parte decree.
Suit remanded considering serious relief (demolition) and multiple occupants.

Judgment visual: remand for fresh hearing after proper service

Ratio (Legal Principle)

An appeal under Section 96(2) CPC lies against an ex parte decree. The appellate court can examine from the record whether the trial court was right in proceeding ex parte. Where service is defective and consequences are severe, remand is proper.

Why It Matters

Clarifies that Section 96 is a strong safeguard even after an ex parte decree.
Reinforces strict compliance with service rules before denying a party a hearing.
Guides courts on using remand where relief is drastic (e.g., demolition).

Key Takeaways

Section 96(2)

Appeal lies against ex parte decrees; appellant can question the very decision to proceed ex parte.

Order V Rule 17

If the defendant is not found, affixation must be done before treating service as complete.

Dual Remedies

Section 96 appeal and Order IX Rule 13 can be used together, subject to the Rule 13 explanation.

Serious Consequences

For demolition and similar reliefs, courts should be extra careful about service and fair hearing.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “SERVE, SHOW, SEND-BACK”

Serve properly — follow Order V Rule 17.
Show error — Section 96(2) lets you challenge the ex parte step.
Send-Back — remand when service was defective and stakes are high.

IRAC Outline

Issue: Can the defendant succeed in a Section 96 CPC appeal against an ex parte decree due to faulty service?

Rule: Section 96(2) CPC; Order IX Rule 13 CPC; Order V Rule 17 CPC.

Application: Summons were not duly served; affixation was not done; proceeding ex parte was unjustified; heavy relief (demolition) required caution.

Conclusion: Appeal allowed; decrees set aside; case remanded for a full hearing after valid service.

Glossary

Ex Parte Decree: Decree passed when the other side does not appear.
Order V Rule 17: Provision about serving summons by affixation when the defendant is not found.
Order IX Rule 13: Application to set aside an ex parte decree on valid grounds.