The High Court cannot issue orders beyond the scope and ambit of the Decree

issued by the Trial Court

Case Name – Sudhir Ranjan Patra (Dead) thr. LRs. & Anr. vs. Himansu Sekhar
Srichandan & Ors.

A Bench headed by Justice M. R. Shah and Justice B. V. Nagarathna has held that the
High Court has no power to grant any supplementary orders on issues not adjudged by
the Trial Court in its Decree.

Facts & History – The Original Petitioner (Respondent) had filed a suit for declaration
of his absolute right over the suit scheduled property with a prayer to issue a
permanent injunction against the defendants. Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 despite seeking
several adjournments failed to file written statement. Consequently, issues were framed
by the Trial Court. Thereafter, plaintiff filed evidence, Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 were called
absent. Learned Trial Court passed an ex-parte decree.

Original Defendant (Appellants) Nos. 2 & 3 filed a CMA under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and
an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for condonation of delay in filing
the CMA. The defendants further prayed to allow filing of written statement. The Trial
Court allowing the CMA, condoned the delay while staying mute on the matter of filing
of written statement by the defendants.

Aggrieved by the Trial Court’s order, the Original Petitioner (Respondent) approached
the High Court. Confirming the order passed by the Trial Court, the High Court passed
an order stating that the ex-parte decree is set aside with Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 not
being permitted to file written statement.

Dissatisfied with the High Court’s Order, Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 approached the apex
court.

Issues – Whether the High Court can issue orders above and beyond the questions
on which the Trial Court has passed a decree?
Counsel for the Original Petitioner (Respondent) Shri Nitesh Bhandari argued that the
Supreme Court in Sangram Singh vs. Election Tribunal, Kotah and Anr. and Arjun
Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar and Ors. has held that – “ when an exparte decree is set
aside and the suit is restored to file, the defendants cannot be relegated back to the
position prior to the date of hearing of the suit and he would be debarred from filing any
written statement in the suit ”

The Bench observed that, with the Trial Court not passing any order/decision on
allowing Defendant Nos. 2& 3 to file written statement or not, “it should have been left to
the learned Trial Court to consider the prayer of defendant Nos. 2 and 3 whether to
allow them to file written statement or not, which was also prayed in CMA.”

Held – On hearing the Counsels representing the Appellants and the Respondent, it was
adjudged that –

 The decision of the Court in Sangram Singh and Arjun Singh would not be
applicable to the facts and circumstances of the matter at hand.
 While the High Court’s decision to set aside the decree and condonation of delay
based on the decree of the Trial Court is valid, further observations on
Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 not being permitted to file their written statement is
beyond the scope and ambit of the CMP filed before the High Court.
 The Order of the High Court to the extent of observing that though the ex-parte
decree is set aside, Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 cannot be permitted to file their written
statement being unsustainable is quashed and set aside.
 The learned Trial Court to consider whether to allow/permit Defendant Nos. 2 & 3 to
file their written statement or not, within one month from the date of the order issued
by the Apex Court.