KANCHHU versus PRAKASH CHAND & ORS.

Citation: [2025] 4 S.C.R. 1490 · Decided: 22-04-2025 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DIPANKAR DATTA · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

[2025] 4 S.C.R. 1490 : 2025 INSC 542
Kanchhu 
v. 
Prakash Chand & Ors.
(Civil Appeal No. 5319 of 2025)
22 April 2025
[Dipankar Datta* and Manmohan, JJ.]
Issue for Consideration
Matter pertains to sustainability of the order passed by the High 
Court allowing writ petition u/Art.227 of the Constitution and allowing 
multiple interlocutory applications-application for condonation of 
delay in filing recall application, application for recall/restoration, 
application for amendment prior to writ petition being allowed.
Headnotes†
Constitution of India – Art.227 – Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – 
Ord.9 r.13 – Appellant filed civil suit for cancellation of a sale 
deed – Respondents filed written statement, and thereafter went 
on taking adjournment one after the other – Having abstained 
from participating in the proceedings, suit decreed ex parte – 
Application u/Ord.9 r.13 with application u/s.5 of Limitation 
Act by the respondents – Application for condonation of 
delay rejected – Thereagainst revision filed – Condonation 
of delay granted, and the trial court directed to dispose of 
the application u/Ord.9 r.13 on its own merits, and thereafter 
the said application was dismissed – Miscellaneous appeal 
thereagainst, dismissed by appellate court – Respondents 
then filed writ petition, which was dismissed as infructuous 
in absence of the respondents, however, two months time 
granted to seek recall of order – Six and a half years later, 
the respondents sought recall of order with an application 
for condonation of delay – High Court allowed condonation 
of delay, recalled the order, allowed prayer for amendment 
and allowed the writ petition and appellate order confirming 
dismissal of the application u/Ord.9 r.13 and ex-parte decree 
were set aside – Sustainability: 
* Author
[2025] 4 S.C.R. 
1491
Kanchhu v. Prakash Chand & Ors.
Held: Not sustainable – Period of seven years is sufficiently long 
and in light of the fact that decree of the trial court had been 
executed and impugned sale deed cancelled, respondents should 
have woken up from their slumber earlier – This delay itself would 
constitute sufficient reason for not condoning the delay in filing the 
application for recall of the order dismissing the writ petition as 
infructuous – Judge did not at all discuss what was the case set 
up by the respondents while seeking recall of the ex parte decree 
and what the defence of the appellant was in his written objection – 
Judge appears to have set aside the ex parte decree passed by the 
trial judge as if he were sitting in appeal and exercising appellate 
jurisdiction over such decree – In exercise of jurisdiction u/Art.227, 
the judge was required to examine whether the respondents had 
shown sufficient cause for staying away from the proceedings of 
the suit after filing their written statement – Judge barely considered 
the application u/Ord.IX r.13 filed by the respondents and, without 
even looking into the cause shown allowed the prayer for setting 
aside of the ex parte decree perceiving the judgment preceding it 
to be flawed on merits – Respondents never explained what was 
the real cause for the suit to proceed ex parte – Cause shown 
falls much short of an explanation and is nothing but a lame 
excuse – Trial court and appellate court assigned cogent reasons 
for not accepting the cause shown by the respondents – Not only 
vigilance and diligence on the part of the respondents are woefully 
lacking but such lack is glaringly apparent – Furthermore, since 
respondents did not cross-examine the appellant, whatever he 
deposed was believed and accepted – It cannot be understood 
how the judgment of the trial court could have been faulted and the 
decree set aside on the ground that the defence raised in the written 
statement was not considered while granting relief – Observations 
of the judge of the High Court cannot be accepted – It is flawed 
approach which has resurrected the dispute between the parties 
which was finally decided three decades back – High Court order 
being based on irrelevant, illogical and immaterial observations is 
clearly indefensible – Impugned order set aside. [Paras 8, 9, 11, 
12, 14-17, 20, 21]
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Civil suit – Rights of a 
defendant in a civil suit where defendant has been set ex-parte:
Held: Pleadings, either in a plaint or a written statement, constitute 
the plinth on which the respective claims and defence of the 
1492
[2025] 4 S.C.R.

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.