Ms. Priya Gupta’s suit of breach of contract against Mr. Verma with regards to framework governing ex-parte proceedings is primarily outlined in the CPC. When one party is absent from the proceedings an ex parte decree order is issued, whether or not the summons being properly served. Under CPC Order IX, Rule 6, the defendants fails to appear on the schedule date, the court may pass decree in favour of plaintiff by proceeding to hear the case.
To have a successful ex parte judgement set aside Mr. Verma needs to demonstrate under CPC Order IX Rule 13 specific grounds as stipulated here. The summons were not served duly to him or he had sufficient cause to be absent during the hearing. The court must be convinced that due to the sufficient causes he failed to attend the hearing. Severe personal issues, legitimate reasons or health emergencies could be included that prevented him from attending court.
Mr. Verma while filing his petition should provide medical records or any affidavits that will be acting as supporting evidence that would substantiate his claims. While hearing both parties presenting their arguments in courts these claims will be evaluated. The non-appearance of Mr. Verma if, is found by the court then it may set aside the ex parte decree and allow the case to be heard with both present parties.
In this case Mr. Verma’s priority should be acting promptly as for filing such applications there are time limits.
If improper service of summons is not proved by him still he can argue that the court should have not proceeded with ex parte based on the circumstances surrounding his absence. The discretion is retained by the court whether to grant the request to set aside the decree, aimed to holding the principle of fairness and due process in legal proceedings.
