In a significant judgment that underscores the principles of fair justice, the Rajasthan High Court ruled that litigants should not suffer due to the absence or inability of their counsel to make alternate arrangements for representation. The judgment was delivered in Phoolaram v. Bajranglal & Ors. [S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14628/2024] by Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati, affirming that procedural lapses should not outweigh substantive justice.
Background of the Case
The case stemmed from a civil suit filed by the petitioner, Phoolaram, in 2017 in the Additional District Court, Nokha, Bikaner. The suit sought the cancellation of a sale deed executed on August 23, 2016. According to the petitioner, the sale was valued at ₹15,45,000, but only ₹1,00,000 was paid, leaving the remaining amount unpaid. The petitioner alleged a failure of consideration and sought perpetual injunction against the respondents, Bajranglal and Ramswaroop, restraining them from alienating or selling the disputed property.
Initially, the respondents filed a written statement in the suit, but later, they failed to appear in court proceedings. Consequently, the trial court passed an ex-parte decree in favor of the petitioner on June 3, 2023, canceling the sale deed and restraining the respondents from transferring the property.
Subsequently, the respondents approached the trial court, filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), 1908, seeking to set aside the ex-parte decree. They cited compelling reasons for their absence, stating that their counsel had undergone corneal transplant surgeries and was undergoing regular treatment, which prevented him from attending the proceedings.
The trial court allowed the application on July 19, 2024, setting aside the ex-parte decree and imposing a cost of ₹10,000 on the respondents. Dissatisfied, the petitioner challenged this decision in the Rajasthan High Court.
Legal Issues Involved
The case brought forth several significant legal questions:
- Sufficient Cause for Non-Appearance: Whether the health issues of the respondents’ counsel constituted sufficient cause under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to justify setting aside the ex-parte decree.
- Litigants’ Responsibility for Counsel’s Actions: Whether a party can be penalized for their counsel’s inability to appear or arrange alternate representation.
- Balancing Procedural Compliance and Substantive Justice: How courts should weigh procedural defaults against the overarching goal of delivering fair justice.
Arguments Presented
Petitioner’s Contentions: Advocate Nitin Trivedi, representing the petitioner, argued that the respondents and their counsel failed to make reasonable efforts to ensure representation during the trial. He pointed out that:
- The same counsel appeared in other matters during the relevant period, undermining the claim of incapacity.
- The counsel could have arranged alternate representation, including engaging other experienced lawyers.
The petitioner contended that procedural rules should be respected and that the trial court erred in setting aside the decree based on insufficient reasons.
Respondents’ Defense: Advocate Deen Dayal Chitlangi, representing the respondents, defended the trial court’s decision, highlighting that their counsel faced serious health challenges, including multiple surgeries, which made it impossible for him to attend proceedings. He emphasized:
- The respondents acted promptly upon learning of the ex-parte decree and filed for its setting aside along with a delay condonation plea.
- Penalizing the respondents for circumstances beyond their control would violate the principles of equity and justice.
He cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Rafiq v. Munshilal (1981), where the court ruled that litigants should not suffer for the inaction or incapacity of their advocates.
High Court’s Observations and Ruling
Justice Nupur Bhati dismissed the writ petition, affirming the trial court’s order as just and proper. Key observations from the judgment include:
- On Litigants’ Suffering Due to Counsel’s Inaction:
“Litigants cannot be made to suffer for the inaction, deliberate omission, or inability of their counsel.”
- On Sufficient Cause Under Order IX Rule 13 CPC: The court noted that the respondents’ counsel substantiated his health issues with medical evidence, including records of failed corneal transplant surgeries and ongoing treatment. The distance of 70 kilometers between his practice and the trial court further exacerbated his difficulties during recovery.
- On Alternative Representation: While alternate arrangements are ideal, the court emphasized that it is impractical to expect litigants, especially those from rural areas, to ensure such arrangements without legal expertise.
Referring to the Supreme Court’s precedent in Rafiq v. Munshilal, the court stressed the duty of the judicial system to prioritize substantive justice over rigid adherence to procedural norms.
Key Takeaways
- Equity Over Procedure: The judgment reaffirms that procedural lapses should not compromise the rights of litigants, particularly when valid reasons for non-appearance are demonstrated.
- Counsel’s Role in Justice Delivery: The court highlighted the adversarial legal system’s reliance on advocates, making it unfair to penalize parties for their counsel’s shortcomings.
- Judicial Discretion: Courts have broad discretion under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside ex-parte decrees in the interest of justice.
