Summary
In exceptional circumstances the Court set aside an ex parte specific-performance decree despite non-perverse findings below on service and delay. The supposed purchaser had never appeared despite directions, and the record suggested proceedings designed to frustrate a final eviction decree. The suit was restored for a merits hearing, preserving possession meanwhile.
Issues
- Whether the peculiar circumstances justified reopening the ex parte decree despite the ordinary procedural findings against the applicants.
Provisions considered
- Order IX Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908The application’s rejection was reversed in the exceptional interests-of-justice circumstances; the Court did not declare the lower courts’ service or delay findings perverse. (¶¶ 1–2, 7–10)
Held
- Commissioner visits found the tenant’s daughter rather than the alleged purchaser, and the purchaser repeatedly failed to attend court despite specific directions. The circumstances cast serious doubt on the claim and indicated an attempt to obstruct the landlord’s final eviction decree. (¶ 8–9)
- Complete justice on these peculiar facts required setting aside the three adverse orders and the ex parte decree, allowing the specific-performance suit to be tried on merits. (¶¶ 7, 10–13)
Result
Appeal allowed; ex parte decree and impugned orders set aside. Suit to be heard on merits and disposed of within one year; possession status quo to continue until final decision.