Pavan Sachdeva & Anr vs S.M.S.Pharmaceuticals Ltd.& Anr
- SCC(2008) 10 SCC 803
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A High Court is not justified in interfering with an order of a Trial Court allowing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree and condoning delay unless that order suffers from an error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in the exercise of jurisdiction. The High Court must record findings on this issue before interfering with such an order of the Trial Court.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
CIVIL APPEAL NO.5410 OF 2008 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.21540 of 2006)
Pavan Sachdeva & Anr. ...Appellant(s)
Versus
S.M.S. Pharmeceuticals Ltd. & Anr. ...Respondent(s)
O R D E R
Leave granted.
Heard learned counsel for the parties.
The Trial Court passed ex-parte decree in a summary suit. The appellants filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree and also for condonation of delay. The same was registered as I.A. No.1224 of 2000. The Trial Court, by its order dated 23rd February, 2001, allowed the application. That order was set aside by the High Court and the matter was remitted to the Trial Court for fresh disposal of I.A. No.1224 of 2000.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the records, we are convinced that the High Court was not justified in interfering with the order of the Trial Court because the same did not suffer from any error of jurisdiction or material irregularity in exercise of jurisdiction. As a matter of fact, the High Court has not ...2/-
-2- recorded any finding on this issue.
Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the order passed by the High Court is set aside and the one passed by the Trial Court is restored. The Trial Court shall now decide the summary suit afresh in accordance with law.
......................J. [B.N. AGRAWAL]
......................J. [G.S. SINGHVI] New Delhi, September 01, 2008.
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free