In Ex-Parte Proceedings, Court Is Not Expected To Blindly Pass Orders In Favour Of The Party Which Is Present: Kerala High Court

The Kerala High Court has held that in ex-parte proceedings, a Court can pass an order in favour of the party present only if they can successfully establish their rights or the liability of the opposite party. The Division Bench comprising of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar added that the court is not expected to blindly pass an order in favour of the party present.“The absence of the opposite party does not exempt the court from adhering to the fundamental legal principles. The court will grant an order in favour of a litigant only if he successfully establishes his right or liability of the opposite party. The burden of the litigant to prove his case to the satisfaction of the court is not vanished by the absence of the opposite party. Equally, the court is not expected to blindly pass an order in favour of the prosecuting party for the fault of the defending side.”The Court. however, added that the burden of proof is not as heavy as in ordinary proceedings. The litigant has to only show a prima facie proof as to the relevant facts constituting the cause of action. The Court can pass a favourable order if it is satisfied about the existence of the right/ liability in question.The Court further observed that even if the case is heard ex parte, the opposite party can join the proceedings at a later stage by accepting the stages that had already taken place.The Court made these observations after it saw that a Rent Control Court had passed an eviction order ex-parte saying that the unrebutted evidence entitles the plaintiffs to the order. The High Court noted that even if the order was given ex-parte, the Court should have followed Rule 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979. The Rule says that an order has to be made in writing after considering oral or documentary evidence and in accordance with justice, equity and good conscience.Further, as per Rule 11, the Court should be satisfied that the claim of the landlord is bonafide. The High Court said that what matters is not the satisfaction of the court, but the manner in which the court arrived at such a conclusion. The Court on these grounds set aside the eviction order.Counsel for the Petitioners: Adv. G . SreekumarCounsel for the Respondents: Adv. Rajesh E KormathCase No: OP(RC) 88 of 2024Case Title: Sajeevan Swamy v Johnson and OthersCitation: 2025 LiveLaw (Ker) 112 Click To Read/ Download Order

In Ex-Parte Proceedings, Court Is Not Expected To Blindly Pass Orders In Favour Of The Party Which Is Present: Kerala High Court

Tellmy Jolly & Manju Elsa Isac

Tags