What did the Court say about ex-parte decrees under Order IX CPC?

Even in ex-parte cases, courts must rely on clear, reliable evidence. A decree cannot be granted on thin or unclear proof.

Are affidavits evidence under Section 3 of the Evidence Act?

No. Affidavits are not ‘evidence’ under Section 3 unless the court orders their use under Order XIX Rules 1–2 CPC.

Why was remand ordered?

Key facts were uncertain and the sole witness was unreliable. A full trial was needed to do justice to both sides.

Did the High Court act correctly in scrutinising evidence in an ex-parte decree?

Yes. An appellate court can test whether the trial court granted the decree on legally acceptable evidence.

What directions were given for the retrial?

Pleadings may be amended, defendants may file written statements, earlier evidence remains, and the trial should finish within six months.

Smt. Sudha Devi v. M.P. Narayanan & Ors

Supreme Court of India India 2024 CPC / Civil Procedure ~6–7 min read

AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi LOCATION: India

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)

CASE_TITLE Smt. Sudha Devi v. M.P. Narayanan & Ors

PRIMARY_KEYWORDS

ex-parte decree Order IX CPC remand for retrial evidence standard in CPC

SECONDARY_KEYWORDS

Section 3 Evidence Act Order XIX affidavits mesne profits Order IX Rule 13 CPC eviction decree

AUTHOR_NAME: Gulzar Hashmi

PUBLISH_DATE: 30-Oct-2024

LOCATION: India

Quick Summary

The case shows a simple rule: even when the other side is absent, the court will not pass a decree without solid proof. Here, the trial court granted an ex-parte decree. The High Court set it aside due to weak evidence. The Supreme Court agreed that the proof was thin and ordered a retrial so that all issues can be tested properly.

Ex-parte does not mean “automatic win”. The plaintiff must still prove the case.
Affidavits are not “evidence” unless the court allows them under Order XIX CPC.

Issues

Was the ex-parte decree justified on the limited evidence produced?
Did the plaintiff prove that the third defendant entered after the earlier eviction decree?
Could the appellate court closely examine the evidence though the decree was ex-parte?
Should the matter be remanded for a full retrial?

Rules

Order IX CPC: Ex-parte hearing requires reliable, relevant evidence before a decree is passed.
Order IX Rule 13 CPC: Remedy to set aside an ex-parte decree, subject to conditions.
Section 3, Evidence Act: Affidavits are not evidence unless permitted by law.
Order XIX CPC: Court may permit proof by affidavit in proper cases (Rules 1–2).

Bottom line: quantity of evidence is not enough—quality and relevance matter.

Facts (Timeline style)

chronological

Timeline graphic of tenancy, eviction, and ex-parte proceedings

Flat at Lord Sinha Road, Calcutta. Plaintiff: Sudha Devi.

Tenant: Baranagar Jute Factory Co. Ltd.; alleged rent default; flat sublet to Sadhan Chattopadhyaya.

Eviction suit filed; ex-parte decree (19 Feb 1982).

Plaintiff alleges post-decree induction of third defendant.

New suit: mesne profits ₹1,44,730 (past), future @ ₹170/day, and possession if needed.

No appearance by defendants; one witness examined; documents tendered.

Trial court passes ex-parte decree for plaintiff.

Third defendant moves O.IX R.13 CPC, then withdraws; files appeal on merits.

High Court allows appeal; finds plaintiff’s evidence insufficient; decree set aside.

High Court rejects plaintiff’s plea for modification/remand; Supreme Court steps in.

Supreme Court orders remand for retrial with specific directions.

Arguments

Appellant (Plaintiff)

Ex-parte decree was proper; documents and witness supported mesne profits and possession.
Third defendant came after eviction, so liability for profits is clear.
If any doubt, court should remand for fair retrial.

Respondents (Defendants)

Evidence was meagre and unclear; sole witness lacked foundation and connection.
Testimony suggested possession even before earlier decree—contradicting plaintiff’s case.
Ex-parte does not relax the proof standard; decree must fall.

Judgment

The Supreme Court supported the High Court’s view that the evidence was not strong enough to sustain the ex-parte decree. It ordered a retrial (remand) so that all parties can properly present pleadings and proof.

Ratio

An ex-parte decree requires reliable, relevant evidence; minimal or confusing proof is not enough.
Affidavits are not “evidence” per Section 3 unless admitted under Order XIX.
Where facts are unclear and key questions arise, a retrial best serves justice.

Why It Matters

The judgment protects fairness. It reminds courts to test evidence even when defendants are absent. It also guides trial judges on using affidavits properly and on when to order a retrial.

Key Takeaways

Ex-parte ≠ automatic decree; strict proof still needed.
Witness must show knowledge, link to parties, and consistency.
Documentary proof should clearly support mesne profits and possession.

Affidavits need Order XIX permission to count as evidence.
When facts are muddy, remand ensures a fair trial.

Mnemonic + 3-Step Hook

Mnemonic: “P-R-O-O-F” — Proper, Reliable, Objective, Order XIX, Full retrial.

Proper links: witness must show connection to parties/property.
Reliable testimony: no contradictions with the case theory.
Objective documents: rents, dates, induction details.
Order XIX for affidavits if needed.
Full retrial if facts stay unclear.

IRAC Outline

Issue	Rule	Analysis	Conclusion
Whether ex-parte decree could stand on meagre proof?	Order IX CPC; Section 3 Evidence Act; Order XIX CPC	Witness lacked foundation; contradictions on possession timing; documents insufficient.	Decree cannot stand; needs proper proof.
Was remand appropriate?	Appellate powers; principles of fair trial	Multiple open questions about third defendant’s induction and mesne profits.	Yes—retrial ordered with directions.

Glossary

Ex-parte Decree: Decree passed when the defendant does not appear; still needs proper evidence.
Mesne Profits: Compensation for wrongful occupation of property.
Affidavit (Order XIX): A written sworn statement; counts as evidence only if court permits under Order XIX.