Striking Out Defense vs. Proceeding Ex-Parte: Legal Aspect

-

Stacking Out Defense vs. Proceeding Ex-Parte: Differences and its Consequences

1. Stacking Out Defense:

  • Definition: Stacking out defense refers to a situation in civil litigation where the defendant chooses not to file a written statement or does so after the deadline stipulated by the court. It can also occur when the defendant does not present sufficient arguments or evidence to refute the claims made by the plaintiff.
  • Legal Provision: This is governed by Order VIII of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908. According to Rule 1 of Order VIII, a defendant is required to file a written statement within 30 days from the date of service of summons, which may be extended to 90 days by the court under certain circumstances.
  • Consequences: If the defense is not filed or is insufficient, the court may treat the defendant as having no defense or may strike out the defense. This can lead to the plaintiff's claims being admitted as unchallenged, often resulting in a decree in favor of the plaintiff without the need for further trial.
  • Case Law: In Modula India v. Kamakshya Singh Deo [(1988) 4 SCC 619], the Supreme Court held that failure to file a written statement does not automatically lead to the striking out of defense, but the court has the discretion to allow the defendant to present their case if they can show sufficient cause for the delay.

2. Proceeding Ex-Parte:

  • Definition: Proceeding ex-parte occurs when the court decides to continue with the trial in the absence of the defendant because they have either failed to appear in court or have not complied with court orders, such as filing a written statement.
  • Legal Provision: This is covered under Order IX of the CPC, specifically Rule 6. If a defendant does not appear in court after being duly summoned, the court may proceed ex-parte, meaning the case will be decided based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff alone.
  • Consequences: The defendant loses the opportunity to present their case, and the court may pass a judgment based solely on the plaintiff’s submissions. The defendant may later apply to set aside the ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 if they can prove that their absence was due to a legitimate reason.
  • Case Law: In Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah [AIR 1955 SC 425], the Supreme Court observed that the power to proceed ex-parte should be exercised judiciously, and the defendant should be given an opportunity to be heard, if possible. The court emphasized that procedural rules should not be used to trap or catch the defendant unaware.

Key Differences:

  • Nature: Stacking out defense is an act (or omission) by the defendant, while proceeding ex-parte is a decision taken by the court.
  • Trigger: Stacking out defense happens due to the defendant’s failure to respond effectively, while proceeding ex-parte is due to the defendant’s absence or non-compliance with court orders.
  • Consequence: In stacking out defense, the defendant’s ability to contest the plaintiff's claims is severely weakened but not necessarily removed. In ex-parte proceedings, the defendant completely loses the chance to defend unless they later apply to set aside the decree.

Understanding these concepts and their implications is crucial for litigants to avoid procedural pitfalls that could lead to unfavorable judgments.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Anathula Sudhakar vs P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) By LRs & Ors on 25 March, 2008 Judgment Detailed Summary

-
Image
Case Overview: Court: Supreme Court of India Bench: R. V. Raveendran, P. Sathasivam Appeal No.: Civil Appeal No. 6191 of 2001 Parties: Petitioner: Anathula Sudhakar (Defendant in the original suit) Respondent: P. Buchi Reddy (Dead) represented by legal representatives Background: The suit was originally filed by Puli Chandra Reddy and Puli Buchi Reddy, who claimed ownership of two sites (110 sq. yards and 187 sq. yards) in Matwada, Warangal town. They alleged that the defendant interfered with their possession when they began construction on the sites in 1978, leading them to file a suit for a permanent injunction. The defendant, Anathula Sudhakar, claimed that he had purchased the entire suit property (300 sq. yards) from K.V. Damodar Rao (brother of the plaintiffs' vendor, Rukminibai) under a registered sale deed in 1977 and that the property was mutated in his name in municipal records. Trial Court and Lower Courts: Trial Court: The suit was decreed in favor of...
Read more

Before Deciding on Interim, Ensure that there is atleast a preliminary satisfaction regarding the Suit Maintainbility: HSC

-
Image
Summary of Judgment: Asma Lateef & Anr. vs. Shabbir Ahmad & Ors. Citation: 2024 INSC 36 Civil Appeal No. 9695 of 2013 Court: Supreme Court of India Judges: Justice B.R. Gavai, Justice Dipankar Datta, and Justice Aravind Kumar Legal Issues: Whether the order dated 5th August 1991, decreeing the suit against Samiullah under Order VIII Rule 10 of the CPC, suffered from a jurisdictional error so grave that the decree drawn up subsequently is incapable of execution. Whether the objections under Section 47 of the CPC by the subsequent purchasers were maintainable. Background: The appellants claimed that their great-grandmother orally gifted them a certain property on 16th August 1988, which was later recorded in a memorandum before the tehsildar. The appellants filed a suit for a permanent injunction against Asad Ullah Kazmi (defendant no. 1), his son Samiullah (defendant no. 2), and a caretaker (defendant no. 3), restraining them from interfering with their possession of...
Read more