Laldhari Mistri (Dead) Thr. LRs. & Anr. v. Vijay Kumar
Background
The appellants' predecessor, a landlord in Munger, Bihar, had won an eviction order against his tenant, but one Vijay Kumar then claimed he had purchased the property under a 1983 agreement to sell and obtained an ex-parte specific-performance decree in 1987 when the landlord did not appear. The landlord's attempt to get that ex-parte decree set aside under Order IX Rule 13 failed before the trial court, the appellate court, and the High Court, each holding he had been validly served and had delayed too long after learning of the decree. The Supreme Court noted the case had a "chequered" and suspicious history worth examining closely.
Decision Breakdown
The Court found it telling that this Vijay Kumar had never personally appeared in any court proceeding despite repeated directions to do so, and that a court-appointed advocate-commissioner who twice visited the property found only the original tenant's daughter in possession, with no trace of Vijay Kumar, who claimed to have been in possession since 1989. The Court concluded that Vijay Kumar appeared to be "a doubtful entity," possibly set up by the tenant to defeat the landlord's long-pending eviction decree. Although it could not fault the lower courts' reasoning on the technical grounds of service and delay, the Supreme Court exercised its power to do "complete justice," set aside all three lower orders and the 1987 ex-parte decree, and directed that the original 1986 suit be heard afresh on its merits within one year, with status quo on possession maintained until then.
Lesson Learnt
Even where the technical/procedural grounds for condoning a litigant's delay are weak, the Supreme Court can look beyond rigid procedural compliance and set aside a decree obtained through what appears to be a fabricated or doubtful party's claim, especially where there is a long, suspicious pattern of non-appearance and shifting possession.