Robin Thapa v. Rohit Dora
Background
The respondent had obtained an ex parte decree for specific performance and mandatory injunction over a residential property in Dehradun after the appellant failed to contest the suit. The appellant claimed he never had proper notice: the original summons was served on his mother, and the case was later transferred to another court without informing him. The trial court accepted his explanation and set aside the ex parte decree, but on revision, the High Court reinstated it, leading to this appeal. By the time the matter reached the Supreme Court, the property had already been conveyed to the respondent by a court-ordered sale deed.
Decision Breakdown
The Supreme Court held that litigation should, wherever possible, be decided on the merits rather than terminated by default, and found genuine gaps in how notice was given to the appellant. However, since the sale deed had already been executed and the respondent had incurred real expenses, the Court allowed the appeal only conditionally: the appellant had to deposit the stamp duty, registration costs, and Rs. 50,000 in costs within one month, after which the sale deed and decree would be set aside and the original suit reheard on merits within six months. If he failed to pay, the appeal would stand dismissed and the decree confirmed.
Lesson Learnt
Courts favour deciding disputes on their actual merits rather than by default, but when undoing a decree would disturb a third party's already-completed rights (like an executed sale deed), relief will usually be made conditional on the applicant first making the other side financially whole.