Does an ex parte judgment that states no reasons answer the requirements of Order 20 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O.XX r.4(2) — O.XX r.5 — O.IX r.13 — Limitation Act, 1963 — s.5 — Ex parte decree without reasons — Sufficient cause — Condonation of delay —
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O.XX r.5 — Ex parte decree — Reasoned order still required —
Held: Every judgment must contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination and the reasons for the decision, and an ex parte judgment must equally answer the requirements of a reasoned order. (¶12)
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 — O.XX r.5 — Co-sharer's alienation — Subject to the partition suit —
Held further: A co-sharer may sell his share of joint property to a third party and the alienation is subject to the result of the partition suit; it does not by itself bind the other co-sharer. (¶12)
Limitation Act, 1963 — s.5 — Sufficient cause — Conduct of the earlier counsel —
Held further: The conduct of the earlier counsel and the circumstances in which the defendants remained ex parte constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of section 5 of the Limitation Act. (¶13, 15)
Limitation Act, 1963 — s.5 — Liberal approach — Limitation pitted against merits —
Held further: Where rejection of an apparently meritorious matter on limitation is pitted against a decision on merits, the Court is entitled to take a liberal approach. Delay condoned subject to costs. (¶17, 18)
Does an ex parte judgment that states no reasons answer the requirements of Order 20 Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
No. An ex parte judgment that states no reasons does not answer the requirements of Order 20 Rule 5. Every judgment should contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination and the reasons for such decision, and this is more so when the defendant does not contest the suit; a decree drawn on a judgment that answers none of those requirements is not a judgment as per law. (¶12) [¶12]
Can a co-sharer sell his share of joint property to a third party subject to the result of the partition suit?
Yes. A co-sharer can sell his share of joint property to a third party and the said alienation is subject to the result of the partition suit. Where the plaintiff's own case is that she is only a co-sharer entitled to a fractional share, a sale deed executed by the other co-sharers of the joint property will not bind her, and the trial court was bound to consider that position before decreeing the suit. (¶12) [¶12]
Does the conduct of the earlier counsel that kept a defendant from contesting a suit amount to sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963?
Yes. The conduct of the earlier counsel that kept a defendant from contesting a suit amounts to sufficient cause under section 5. The same counsel had been engaged by the defendants in both proceedings and the defendants remained ex parte in both; a purchaser who entrusted the defence to his own family members raised a serious doubt whether he was deliberately kept away from effectively contesting the suit, and the ground reality of litigants being dependent on their counsel remains. (¶13, 15) [¶13, ¶15]
Does a liberal approach apply where rejection of an apparently meritorious matter on limitation is pitted against a decision on merits?
Yes. A liberal approach applies where rejection of an apparently meritorious matter on limitation is pitted against deciding it on merits. The petitioner ought accordingly to be afforded one more opportunity to contest the suit on merits, in the interests of justice and subject to cost. (¶16, 17) [¶16, ¶17]
What did the Madras High Court finally decide on the condonation of delay in setting aside the ex parte decree?
The civil revision petition was allowed. The order of the Additional District Munsif was set aside and the delay of 576 days was condoned subject to payment of Rs.20,000 as costs within three weeks, failing which the revision would stand dismissed; on compliance, the trial court was directed to dispose of the case within six months uninfluenced by the observations made. (¶18) [¶18]
Prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk — verify against the judgment.
“12. In the said judgment in Ayyasamy case, it has been held that every judgment should contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination and reasons for such decision and even an ex parte judgment should answer the requirements of a reasoned order. This is more so, when the defendant does not contest the suit. As stated earlier, the judgment contained in the suit in O.S.No.672 of 2009 dated 04.08.2011 does not contain any reasons to arrive at the conclusion, especially, admitted case of the 1 st respondent that she is entitled only for lesser extent and she filed partition suit for her share. Even as per her own case, she is only a co-sharer and the sale deed executed by the co-sharers of the joint property, will not bind her. Any co-sharer can sell his share of property to any third party and the said alienation is subject to the result of the partition suit. These facts were not considered by the Trial Court. The judgment in Ayyasamy case stated supra squarely applies to the facts of the present case.”
“13. It is also an admitted fact that the same counsel had been engaged by the defendants 2 to 8 in the present suit. The petitioner has produced the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.562 of 2006 by the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur, wherein the very same counsel had appeared for defendants 4 to 7. It is further seen that, in both the suits, the respective defendants remained absent and were set ex parte. The present suit has been instituted by the first respondent, who claims to be a co-sharer in the suit property. In such circumstances, the respondents 2 to 8 were the persons who were expected to effectively contest the claim made by the first respondent. The petitioner, being a purchaser from the second defendant, appears to have entrusted the matter to the other defendants, who are his family members, believing that they would take necessary steps to defend the suit. The circumstances narrated above, coupled with the fact that the same counsel had been engaged by the defendants in both the proceedings and that the defendants had remained ex parte, raise a serious doubt as to whether the petitioner was deliberately kept away from effectively contesting the suit.”
“15. As held in the above case, the conduct of the earlier counsel and the circumstances under which the defendants remained ex parte, therefore, constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is also significant to note that the counter filed by the first respondent in I.A.No.427 of 2016 does not specifically deal with the petitioner's assertion that his father had earlier purchased an extent of 380 sq.ft. from defendants 2 to 8 and their mother under the sale deed dated 24.11.1994. The said transaction relates to the year 1994, whereas the suit schedule property has been described as measuring 16 cents without deducting the above mentioned 380 Sq.ft.”
“17. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner ought to be afforded one more opportunity to contest the suit on merits. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, the delay is liable to be condoned subject to cost.”
“18. In view of the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif in I.A.No.427 of 2016 dated 03.02.2023 is set aside and the delay of 576 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 04.08.2011 passed in O.S.No.672 of 2009 is condoned, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the 1 st respondent towards costs within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to pay the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period, this Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. On compliance, the learned Additional District Munsif, Alandur is directed to dispose the case within a period of six months from the date of compliances, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court. No costs. 22-09-2026”
Headnote & Points of Law
You've used your free headnotes this month
The Court's judgment is below in full, free, as always — that never changes. What needs an account is LexStreak's own work on it: the headnote, the questions this judgment settles, and the passages that decide them. A free account opens all of it again.
Create my free accountFree forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
This Civil Revision Petition has been filed against the order dated 03.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional District Munsif, Alandur in I.A.No.427 of 2016 in O.S.No.672 of 2009, dismissing the petition filed for condone the delay of 576 days in filing a petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 04.08.2011 in the above suit.
The petitioner herein is the 8th defendant in the suit. The 1st respondent herein is the plaintiff, filed the said suit for declaration of the sale deed executed by the 2nd defendant in favour of the 8th defendant dated 23.02.2026 registered as Document No.1079 of 2006 as null and void; for a declaration to declare that the sale deed executed by 2nd defendant and 6th defendant jointly in favour of the 9th defendant registered as Document No.2999 of 2007 dated 14.05.2007 as null and void and also for a relief of permanent injunction restraining the defendants 1 to 9 not to alienate the suit schedule property.
The case of the plaintiff is that the 8 cents of the property was owned by his father by way of the sale deed registered as Document No.1074 of 1961 and the remaining 8 cents was derived by his father through partition deed dated 10.01.1968 vide Document No.69 of 1968. The plaintiff’s father and mother died intestate on 10.05.1979 and 04.03.2002 respectively, leaving behind the plaintiff and the defendants 1 to 7 as their legal heirs. The plaintiff, being a daughter, claiming 1/12th share in the suit schedule property, filed a suit for partition against the defendants 1 to 7 herein in O.S.No.562 of 2006 before the learned Additional District Munsif Court at Alandur. Pending the above suit, the 2nd defendant sold another portion of the property in favor of the 8th defendant. Thereafter, the 2nd and 8th defendants jointly sold another portion of the property to the 9th defendant.
It was her further case that when the suit filed for partition is pending, the defendants 2 and 6 should not have sold the properties to the 8 th and 9th defendants. Hence, she filed the present suit. Due to non-filing of the written statement, the defendants were set ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 04.08.2011. Thereafter, the petitioner herein / 8th defendant filed a petition in I.A.No.427 of 2016 for condoning the delay of 576 days in setting aside the ex parte decree dated 04.08.2011.
In the affidavit filed in support of the condone delay petition, the petitioner stated that immediately on receipt of the summons from the Court, he approached the defendants 1 to 7. They promised that they would take care of the case by engaging Lawyers namely, Raffiq and Udhaya Suriyan of Triplicane therefore, the petitioner also signed Vakalath and handed over the Vakalath to the defendants 1 to 7. He further stated that his father purchased two shops having an extent of 380 Sq.ft., from the defendants 1 to 7 and their mother Gileka Beebi by way of a sale deed dated 24.11.1994 registered as Document No.4879 of 1994 on the file of the Sub-Registrar Office, Adyar. Subsequently, the petitioner purchased the property having an extent of 227 Sq.ft., along with the building from the 2nd defendant by way of sale deed dated 23.02.2026 registered as Document No.1879 of 2006.
The petitioner further submitted that he is in possession and enjoyment of the properties having an extent of 380 Sq.ft., and 227 Sq.ft., in total 607 Sq.ft., of land and building. He further submitted that he received the notice dated 04.03.2013 from the 1st respondent herein. In the said notice, it was stated that the petitioner’s sale deed was cancelled, since the suit was decreed on 04.08.2011. On 08.03.2013, the 1st respondent personally came to the petitioner’s shop and informed about the cancellation of the sale deed and the decree passed. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner approached his earlier counsel. The said counsel informed that he misplaced the case bundles and because of that he could not attend the case. He further informed that he would trace the bundle and find the status of the case.
On verification of the case records, the petitioner came to know that he and other defendants were set ex parte and ex parte decree was passed for non-filing of counter and written statement. He thereafter, approached new counsel and tried to get the papers from the earlier counsel. Since he could not get the case papers from the earlier counsel, he filed the petition to set aside the ex parte decree with a delay of 576 days. The petitioner has stated that he came to know of the decree only on 04.03.2013 and the non-appearance was neither willful nor wanton. The petitioner also stated that he is a bonafide purchaser and he should be given a chance to contest the case on merits.
The learned Additional District Munsif dismissed the above petition on the ground that there was no sufficient cause shown by the petitioner for condonation of delay of 576 days. The petitioner has been negligent on his part and failed to follow the suit proceedings. Even though he entered appearance through counsel, failed to file written statement. The learned Judge also observed that the petitioner did not explained why he did not approach his counsel till the date of receipt of notice / Ex.P1 dated 04.03.2013. The Trial Court dismissed the condone delay petition stating that the length of delay has not been properly explained vide its order dated 03.02.2023. Challenging the same, the present Civil Revision is filed.
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the records available.
The plaintiff filed a suit for partition before the learned Additional District Munsif Court at Alandur in O.S.No.562 of 2006. It was also subsequently decreed on 06.11.2012. The 1st respondent herein has not made the petitioner herein as a party in the partition suit. On the other hand, the present suit is filed on 18.07.2006, only after the sale was executed in favour of the petitioner by the 3rd respondent herein on 23.02.2006. As per the own case of the 1st respondent she is entitled for 1/12th share in the entire property. On verifying the ex parte decree dated 04.08.2011, the suit was decreed without framing the issues, findings and there was no reasons stated. The learned District Munsif Court recorded the nature of the exhibits and decreed the suit as stated above on no findings and reasons.
The learned counsel for the petitioner relied upon the judgment reported in 2023 6 MLJ 164 in the case of Ayyasamy Vs. Shanmugam wherein, it was observed as follows:
This view has been consistently approved by several Judges of this Court : i) Meenakshi vs Andal 2020 SCC Online Mad 14583 (R.SUBRAMANIAN,J.,) “ 14. A bare perusal of the above judgment would show that there was total non application of mind on the part of the learned Subordinate Judge, when the suit was decreed ex parte. Even the statutory requirement regarding readiness and willingness of the plaintiff has not been gone into and there is no finding recorded. It is fundamental principle of law that a Court cannot decree a suit merely because the defendants remain ex parte. 15. The Division Bench had even gone to the extent of concluding that an ex parte judgment can be set aside, if it is shown that there is total non application of mind and that would itself constitute a sufficient cause under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. I do not propose to travel that far since what is now before me is only a Revision against an order refusing to condone the delay in seeking restoration of an application to set aside the ex parte decree.” ii)Management Neptune Travels India Pvt Ltd vs Rep by its Managing Director vs Special Deputy Commissioner Labour and Another 2020 SCC Online Mad 20948. (P.D.AUDIKESAVALU,J.,) “ 6. It must, at once, be pointed out that the Division Bench of this Court in Meenakshisundaram Textiles V. Valliammal Textiles Ltd [(2011) 3 CTC 168] after referring to the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in Swaran Lata Ghosh v H.K.Banerjee [(1969) 1 SCC 709], State of Tamil Nadu vs S. Thangavel [(1997) 2 SCC 349], Balraj Taneja vs Sunil Madam [(1999) 8 SCC 396), Lakshmi Ram Bhuyan vs Hari Prasad Bhuyan [(2003) 1 SCC 197], Ramesh Chand Ardawatiya v Anil Panjwani [(2003) 7 SCC 350], and State of Punjab v Bhag Singh [(2004) 1 SCC 547], has reiterated the settled legal position that even in the absence of the Defendant contesting in a suit, the Court is legally bound to give reasons for accepting the claim of the Plaintiff and in the absence of such adjudication of the claim, such decree passed cannot be sustained in law.....” iii) Brahmand Farm Lands Ltd Rep by its Director V.K.Somakumar vs K.Venkatesan 2021 SCC Online Mad 1078 (G.K.ILANTHIRAIYAN,J.,) All these learned Judges have followed the dictum in Meenakshi Sundaram Textiles vs Valli Textiles Limited 2011 3 CTC 168. In the said judgment, the Division Bench was pleased to hold as follows:- "5. We have heard the respective learned counsel on either side on the above question. Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure defines a "judgment" as meaning, the statement given by the judge on the grounds of a decree or order. In this context, Order XX Rules 4 (1) & (2) are also referable, which read as under: 4. Judgment of Small Cause Courts.--(1) Judgments of a Court of Small Causes need not contain more than the points for determination and the decision thereon.
(2) Judgments of other Courts.--Judgments of other Courts shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision." Order XX Rule 4(1) relates to the judgment of a Court of Small Causes. Inasmuch as the said judgment does not require more than the points for determination and that the decision thereon, a judgment of a Court of Small Causes shall not fall under Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure. Insofar as the judgment of other Court is concerned, in terms of Order XX Rule 4(2), it shall contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, the decision thereon, and the reasons for such decision and therefore it shall fall under Section 2(9) of the Code of Civil Procedure and in that sense, all the ingredients contained in Order XX Rule 4(2) must be available in that judgment. This is more so in view of the provisions of Order XX Rule 5 relating to the duty of the Court to state its reasons on each issue. That Rule reads as under: "5.Court to state its decision on each issue.--In suits in which issues have been framed, the Court shall state its finding or decision, with the reasons therefore, upon each separate issue, unless the finding upon any one or more of the issues is sufficient for the decision of the suit." 6. In terms of the above provisions, every judgment should contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination, decision thereon and the reasons for such decision. A judgment which does not contain the bare minimum facts, the point for determination, the evidence adduced and the application of those facts and evidence for deciding the issue would not qualify it to be called as "judgment". The judgment should contain the brief summary of the facts, the evidence produced by the plaintiff in support of his claim and the reasoning of the learned Judge either for decreeing the suit or its dismissal. The Civil Procedure Code does not say that the Court is bound to grant a decree in case the defendant is absent. Judgment means cognitive process of reading a decision or drawing conclusion. Judgment is the basic requirement for a court and it means a decison or conclusion reached after consideration and deliberation. To put it differently, the basics of a judgment are to support by most cogent reasons that suggest themselves the final conclusion at which the Judge has conscientiously arrived. ................... 21. From the above discussions, it is manifestly clear that even a judgment rendered ex parte and a decree is drawn on the basis of that judgment, it is appealable. In case that judgment and decree become final without there being any appeal, the decree is executable. In that sense, there is no difference between a judgment and decree and an ex parte judgment and decree. In view of the above, in the event the defendant is set ex parte, the Court should be extra careful in such case and it should consider the pleadings and evidence and arrive at a finding as to whether the plaintiff has made out a case for a decree. In this context, it may also be mentioned that though a detailed judgment is required in a contested matter, an ex parte judgment should show the application of the minimum requirement of consideration of the pleadings, issues, evidence and the relief sought for rendering such judgment." In all these precedents, the Court has held that a judgment which does not answer the requirements of Order 20 Rule 5 is not a judgment as per law.
In the said judgment in Ayyasamy case, it has been held that every judgment should contain a concise statement of the case, the points for determination and reasons for such decision and even an ex parte judgment should answer the requirements of a reasoned order. This is more so, when the defendant does not contest the suit. As stated earlier, the judgment contained in the suit in O.S.No.672 of 2009 dated 04.08.2011 does not contain any reasons to arrive at the conclusion, especially, admitted case of the 1 st respondent that she is entitled only for lesser extent and she filed partition suit for her share. Even as per her own case, she is only a co-sharer and the sale deed executed by the co-sharers of the joint property, will not bind her. Any co-sharer can sell his share of property to any third party and the said alienation is subject to the result of the partition suit. These facts were not considered by the Trial Court. The judgment in Ayyasamy case stated supra squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
It is also an admitted fact that the same counsel had been engaged by the defendants 2 to 8 in the present suit. The petitioner has produced the judgment and decree passed in O.S.No.562 of 2006 by the learned Additional District Munsif Court, Alandur, wherein the very same counsel had appeared for defendants 4 to 7. It is further seen that, in both the suits, the respective defendants remained absent and were set ex parte. The present suit has been instituted by the first respondent, who claims to be a co-sharer in the suit property. In such circumstances, the respondents 2 to 8 were the persons who were expected to effectively contest the claim made by the first respondent. The petitioner, being a purchaser from the second defendant, appears to have entrusted the matter to the other defendants, who are his family members, believing that they would take necessary steps to defend the suit. The circumstances narrated above, coupled with the fact that the same counsel had been engaged by the defendants in both the proceedings and that the defendants had remained ex parte, raise a serious doubt as to whether the petitioner was deliberately kept away from effectively contesting the suit.
In the judgment reported in the case of Kumari Sahu Vs. Bhubananda Sahu & Others made in SLP(Civil) No.24443 of 2024 dated 31.01.2025, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“12. Even though the above-quoted case law is from the year 1981, we cannot deny the fact that the ground reality of a considerable proportion of litigants being completely dependent on their counsel remains the same, especially in regions with lower economic and educational prowess.”
As held in the above case, the conduct of the earlier counsel and the circumstances under which the defendants remained ex parte, therefore, constitute sufficient cause within the meaning of Section 5 of the Limitation Act. It is also significant to note that the counter filed by the first respondent in I.A.No.427 of 2016 does not specifically deal with the petitioner's assertion that his father had earlier purchased an extent of 380 sq.ft. from defendants 2 to 8 and their mother under the sale deed dated 24.11.1994. The said transaction relates to the year 1994, whereas the suit schedule property has been described as measuring 16 cents without deducting the above mentioned 380 Sq.ft.
In the judgment in Arunoday Singh Vs. Lee Anne Elton reported in 2021 SCC Online SC 3285, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as follows:
“29. It is well settled that when rejection of an apparently meritorious appeal on the ground of limitation is pitted against deciding the appeal on merits, the Courts are entitled to take a liberal approach in deciding an application for condonation of delay. This is exactly what the High Court has done.”
In view of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner ought to be afforded one more opportunity to contest the suit on merits. Accordingly, in the interests of justice, the delay is liable to be condoned subject to cost.
In view of the foregoing reasons, the order passed by the learned Additional District Munsif in I.A.No.427 of 2016 dated 03.02.2023 is set aside and the delay of 576 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree dated 04.08.2011 passed in O.S.No.672 of 2009 is condoned, subject to the condition that the petitioner shall pay a sum of Rs.20,000/- to the 1 st respondent towards costs within a period of three weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to pay the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period, this Civil Revision Petition shall stand dismissed. On compliance, the learned Additional District Munsif, Alandur is directed to dispose the case within a period of six months from the date of compliances, uninfluenced by any of the observations made by this Court. No costs. 22-09-2026
Is an employee's removal invalid under Article 311(1) where the removing authority is subordinate in rank to the appointing authority?
2026 INSC 1047 · Supreme Court of India
Can a remand for fresh trial on the Mandvi dictum be ordered where the accused never alleged prejudice?
2026 INSC 1053 · Supreme Court of India
Does a victim's appeal against a Magistrate's acquittal under the BNSS lie to the same court as an appeal from that Magistrate's conviction?
2026 INSC 1052 · Supreme Court of India
The Supreme Court and the Madras High Court decide something every day. Read one a day.
A free account gets you the day's judgments in your practice areas, a reading streak, and folders to keep what matters.
Start reading freeOne judgment a day. That's the whole habit.
LexStreak turns the Supreme Court's and the Madras High Court's output into a five-minute daily read for advocates — plain-language headnotes, the questions each judgment settles, and the full text when you need it.
Free forever plan · 30 seconds · data stays in India
Headnote and questions prepared by the LexStreak Editorial Desk · Report an error · Privacy