Order 9, Rule 13 - Non appearance of party when the case was called - "Expression' was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing" should be construed liberally[Sadanandan V. Bhanalakshmy and others, ILR 2002 (2) Kerala 480. N.Krishnan Nair (J)]
Order IX rule 13 - Conditional order setting aside of exparte-decree imposing security for entire plaint amount - Not justified - The lower court ought not to have imposed such condition. [ Kerala Packaging Pvt. Ltd. vs. M/s. Ramalinga Iyer. S.Sankarasubban & A.Lekshmikutty (J&J)]
Order 9 Rule 8 and Order 17 Rule 2 - The plaintiff was absent when the suit was posted for trial. But the trial court dismissed the suit on merits with out taking any evidence Order IX Rule 8,does not give power to the trial court to decree the suit when the plaintiff is absent, in the absence of admission of the claim. That means the dismissal of the suit in the absence of plaintiff shall be dismissal with out going in to the merits or dismissal for default. . [C.V. Thankappan v. Achuthan and others, S.A.No. 755 of 1990, dated 15-10-1999. K.A. Abdul Gafoor, J.]
Or.
9 Rule 13 - In any case in which a decree is passed ex-parte against a
defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order
to set it aside. [ Thomas Abraham vs Muraleedharan Nair.
1999(2) KLJ 90. 1999(2) KLJ 656 . K.K.Usha & R.Rajendra Babu {JJ}]
Order IX Rule 1 - Evidence Act - Sec. 3 - Suit for specific performance - Defendant set exparte - Affidavit filed - suit decreed - Subsequent contention in EP that decree passed on the basis of affidavit is not executable at it is null and void ab initio will not stand - Remedy of the party, if aggrieved by the decree is to file appeal - Trial court finding on the basis of documents and affidavit is valid - In the execution proceeding JD cannot be heard to contend that the decree is not executable since the decree is passed on wrong appreciation of evidence or insufficient evidence . [ P.J.Thomas vs Tony Mathew. 2001 (2) KLT 724 = 2001 (2) KLJ 329 = ILR 2001 (3) Ker.354. K.A.Mohammed Shafi (J)]
Order 18 Rule 17 - Plaintiff in Baharin was present when case was listed - Subsequently removed the case from the list - Later when the case was listed his power of attorney was examined - He asked for sometime so that plaintiff can come from Baharin - Before the closure of the evidence an application was made to reopen the case - Court should take note of the difficulties experienced by the litigants, especially, those who employed abroad. [C.H. Raveendran Vs. C.O.Ramakrishnan Nambiar, 2002 (1) KLT 244. dated 6th December, 2001. (S.Sankarasubban (J)]
Order IX Rule 13 - Defendant failed to show sufficient cause for their non-appearance before the court - Given absolute false and different reasons for their non-appearance in the court - Defendants were not only diligent but they were grossly negligent - No sufficient cause. [Joseph John vs Joseph. 2001 (3) KLT 525 = 2001 (2) KLJ 419. Dated 3rd August, 2001. K.A.Mohammed Shafi (J)]