Holding

The first appeal is dismissed; the ex‑parte decree stands and is not set aside.

Summary

The plaintiff, a seller of brass parts and hardware, sued the defendant for the recovery of Rs 42,06,250 remaining unpaid on invoices, together with interest. The defendant failed to appear or file a written statement, leading the trial court to pass an ex‑parte decree for the amount with interest (initially recorded at 18% but later corrected to 6% by a Section 152 rectification order). The defendant appealed under Section 96 of the CPC, contending that the decree was ex‑parte and should be set aside, and that the trial court had not applied its mind, pointing to typographical errors. The High Court examined the provisions of Order 9, Order 8, Order 15 and Order 17 of the CPC and held that the decree, though ex‑parte, was valid; the defendant had not shown lack of service or sufficient cause to invoke Order 9 Rule 13, and the typographical errors were corrected and did not amount to non‑application of mind. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed and the decree upheld.

Issues considered

Whether an ex‑parte decree can be set aside in a first appeal filed under Section 96 of the CPC.
Whether the trial court failed to apply its mind in passing the decree.
Whether typographical errors in the judgment affect its validity.

Legislation cited

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908s. Order 15 Rule 2, s. Order 17 Rule 2, s. Order 17 Rule 3, s. Order 5 Rule 5, s. Order 8 Rule 10, s. Order 9 Rule 13, s. Order 9 Rule 6, s. Order 9 Rule 7, s. Section 152, s. Section 96

Subjects

ex parte decreeSection 96 CPCOrder 9 Rule 13typographical errorinterest ratecivil suitjudgment rectificationappeal dismissed

Judgment

C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

Reserved On : 30/06/2026
Pronounced On : 10/07/2026

IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2986 of 2021

With
CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR STAY) NO. 1 of 2021
In R/FIRST APPEAL NO. 2986 of 2021

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

==========================================================

Approved for Reporting Yes No

==========================================================
SWASTI TAPA PATRA W/O CHANDRA SHEKHAR PATRA
Versus
MANSUKHBHAI AAMBABHAI TALPARA
==========================================================
Appearance:
MR SM KIKANI for MR MS PADALIYA(7406) for the Appellant
MS MEGHA JANI, SR. ADVOCATE with MR MEET D PANSURIA(10170) for
the Respondent
==========================================================

CORAM:HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J. C. DOSHI

CAV JUDGMENT

1. The present first appeal has been filed by the appellant
(original defendant) under Section 96 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908 (in short “the Code”) against the judgment
and decree dated 30.4.2021 passed in Special Civil Suit No.
28 of 2019 by the learned Principal Senior Civil Judge,
Jamnagar, by which the plaintiff's suit for recovery of money

Page 1 of 19
C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

was allowed and the defendant was held liable to pay Rs.
56,00,000/- with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

1.1 Subsequently, the learned trial Court on discovering
typographical error rectified the judgment and decree under
Section 152 of the Code by passing a fresh order holding that
the plaintiff is entitled to recover Rs. 56,00,000/- with interest
at 6% per annum from the date of the suit till realization,
thereby correcting the interest rate from 18% to 6%.

2. For the sake of convenience and brevity, parties are
referred to as per their original status before the learned trial
Court.

3. Brief facts of the case are as under:-

3.1 The plaintiff is engaged in the business of selling brass
parts and SS hardware materials at Jamnagar since many
years. The defendant had purchased materials worth
Rs.62,86,250/- under invoice Nos.31,38,39,42,46 respectively
during the period from 24.01.17 to 21.03.17 against which the
defendant has made payment of Rs.20,80,000/- and an amount
of Rs.42,06,250/- remains due and payable by the defendant
to the plaintiff.

3.2 That despite several efforts to recover the said amount
from the defendant, whereby, the defendant has been giving

Page 2 of 19
C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

false excuses and avoiding payment legal dues, remains failed.
The cheques issued by the defendant in lieu of the payment
have been dishonoured on their presentation to the bankers
and have returned unpaid.

3.3 The plaintiff filed the suit to recover the outstanding
amount of Rs. 42,06,250/-, being the balance due after
deducting Rs. 20,80,000/- already paid by the
appellant/defendant, along with interest from the date of the
suit till realization.

3.4 The suit was called for hearing on several dates. Despite
due service of summons upon the defendant, the defendant
did not file a written statement and did not participate in the
suit proceedings. The defendant's advocate chose not to
remain present. Consequently, the learned trial court
proceeded to hear and decide the suit ex parte, resulting in
the impugned judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff.

3.5 Being aggrieved by the judgment and decree as passed,
the defendant has preferred the present first appeal.

4. Heard learned counsel Mr. SM Kikani for learned
counsel Mr. MS Padaliya appearing for the appellant /
defendant and learned Senior counsel Ms. Megha Jani
assisted by learned counsel Mr. Meet Pansuriya appearing for
the respondent / plaintiff.

Page 3 of 19
C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

5. Learned counsel Mr. Kikani made two fold submissions.
He would further submit that the suit ran ex parte against the
defendant, as the advocate representing the defendant did not
file a written statement and did not participate in the suit
proceedings, ultimately leading the trial court to pass an ex
parte decree. The defendant did not get opportunity to put
his defence due to negligence of the lawyer. Therefore,
learned counsel Mr. Kikani would submit that under the
principle of audi alteram partem, the defendant prayed that
he be given one more opportunity to file a written statement
and lead his defence, to demonstrate that the materials
supplied by the plaintiff were of inferior quality and that no
amount is due against the defendant.

5.1 Learned counsel Mr. Kikani would further submit that on
going through the impugned judgment, it appears that the
learned trial court appears to have not applied its mind. He
would further submit that the plaintiff's case was that he was
selling brass parts and hardware materials to the defendant
and that Rs. 42,06,250/- remained due. However, in
paragraphs 10, 11 and 12 of the impugned judgment, the trial
court recorded findings that the defendant purchased
potatoes from the plaintiff worth Rs. 4,76,065/- and that the
plaintiff company was entitled to payment towards telephonic
services and connections (Rs. 27,535/-). These findings bear
no relation whatsoever to the plaintiff's actual case. He would
further submit that in paragraph 11 of the judgment, there is a

Page 4 of 19
C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

finding granting interest at 6% per annum, while the
operative part of the same judgment indicates interest at 18%
per annum. This inconsistency further demonstrates total non-
application of mind and drew logical connection that the
judgment impugned in appeal is passed in absence of
conscious consideration inasmuch as mechanical disposal of
the suit.

5.2 On the basis of the above arguments, learned counsel
Mr. Kikani submitted that the learned trial court had either
copy-pasted a judgment from another matter or had clubbed
two different judgments together, demonstrating a non-
deliberate approach and non-application of mind.

5.3 In support of his argument, learned counsel Mr. Kikani
placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in case
of G. Ratna Raj (Dead by LRs) v. Muthukumarasamy, AIR
2019 SC (Suppl) 241 and submitted that on conjoint reading
of Order 9 Rule 13, Order 9 Rule 6, Order 17 Rule 2 and
Order 17 Rule 3 of the Code, the Hon’ble Apex Court held that
when the suit was called for on hearing, the defendants were
absent despite service of summons and accordingly, the
learned trial Court passed decree, such a decree was ex parte
decree and can be set aside under Order 9 Rule 13 of the
Code. He would therefore, submit that same ratio would be
applied to the present case.

5.4 Upon above submissions, learned counsel Mr. Kikani

Page 5 of 19
C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

prays that present First Appeal be allowed, the impugned
judgment and decree be set aside and the matter be
remanded back for fresh consideration with granting liberty to
the defendant to file a written statement and lead his defence.

6. Per contra, learned Senior counsel Ms. Megha Jani
assisted by learned counsel Mr. Pansuriya for the plaintiff
would submit that the defendant cannot, in an appeal filed
under Section 96 of the Code, argue as if he was an applicant
seeking to set aside an ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13
of the Code. She would further submit that the judgment of
the Hon’ble Apex Court relied upon by the learned counsel Mr.
Kikani pertains to the setting aside of an ex parte decree, and
the ratio thereof cannot be applied in an appeal filed by the
defendant under Section 96 of the Code. She submits that
criteria appearing in application to set aside ex parte decree
under O 9 R 13 of the Code is altogether different and cannot
be brought into while hearing First Appeal u/s 96 of the Code.

6.1 Learned counsel Ms. Megha Jani accordingly prayed that
the appeal be dismissed. She would further submit that the
typographical error crept in the impugned judgment and
decree has been rectified by the learned trial Court u/s 152 of
the Code and therefore, the contention of learned counsel Mr.
Kikani of non-application of mind has no substance. She
would further submit that the plaintiff, in a suit seeking
recovery of Rs,42,06,250/- for selling brass parts and SS
hardware materials to the defendant, has produced more than

Page 6 of 19
C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

sufficient evidence including the cheque issued by the
defendant at Exh.26 to 34 and the compared copy of ledger
and proved his case. She would further submit that in a
cheque return case, the defendant has been convicted by the
competent Court and presently, appeal against conviction is
pending before the learned Sessions Court. It is in this
argument, learned Senior counsel Ms. Jani submitted that the
plaintiff in the suit, which ran ex parte, has discharged his
burden to prove the case against the defendant. The decree
though passed ex parte, is valid and effective decree. She
would further submit that the defendant has failed to show any
circumstances to set aside the decree.

6.2 Upon above submissions, learned Senior counsel Ms.
Megha Jani prays to dismiss the First Appeal.

7. I have heard learned counsels for respective parties and
also perused the impugned judgment and decree as well as R
& P of the suit.

8. The questions, which fall for consideration of this Court,
are that whether the defendant makes out a case that the
impugned judgment and decree, having been passed in the
absence of the defendant, deserves to be set aside only on the
ground that it is ex parte decree? and Whether the learned
trial court passed the impugned judgment and decree without
application of mind? What order?

Page 7 of 19
C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

9. The emphasize of the argument of learned counsel Mr.
Kikani is that since the impugned judgment and decree is
passed in absence of the defendant, it being an ex parte
decree, the impugned judgment and decree is required to be
set aside and the defendant be given one chance to defend his
case and for that, heavy reliance is placed upon the judgment
of the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of G. Ratna Raj (supra).

10. On the factual aspect, it is undeniable that the
defendant, chose not to remain present in the suit
proceedings when the suit was called for hearing, despite due
service of summons. Consequently, the suit proceeded ex
parte against the defendant and culminated in the impugned
judgment and decree.

11. While evaluating the argument of ex parte decree, this
Court considered the relevant provisions of Order 9 of the
Code governing the appearance of parties and the
consequences of non-appearance. Order 9 Rule 6 provides the
procedure when only the plaintiff appears and the defendant
does not appear. Order 9 Rule 11 provides the procedure in
case of non-attendance of one or more of several defendants.
Order 9 Rule 7 provides the procedure when a defendant
appears on the date of adjourned hearing and seeks to explain
his previous non-appearance. Order 9 Rule 13 provides the
procedure for setting aside an ex parte decree against a
defendant. Simultaneously, other provisions of the Code is
also needed to go through. Order 15 Rule 2 provides that if

Page 8 of 19
C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

one of several defendants is not at issue, the court may at
once proceed to judgment as against such defendant. Order
17 Rule 2 provides that if a party fails to appear on the day
fixed, the matter relates back to Order 9 for disposal of the
suit. Order 17 Rule 3 provides that the court may proceed to
decide the suit notwithstanding a party's failure to produce
evidence, cause attendance of witnesses, or perform any other
act necessary to further the progress of the suit.

12. Apposite to note that in order to set aside an ex parte
decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, an applicant must
satisfy one of the following two grounds: (i) that the summons
was not duly served upon him; or (ii) that he was prevented by
sufficient cause from appearing in the suit when it was called
for hearing.

13. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Sangram Singh
Versus Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425
authored by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Vivian Bose, (as His Lordship
then was) has examined interplay of O 9 R 6 r/w O 17 R 2. In
para 24 to 33, the Hon’ble Apex Court held thus:-

“24. Rule 1 of O. 9 starts by saying
" On the day fixed in the summons' for the
defendant to appear' and answer ... ... "
and the rest of the rules in that Order are
consequential on that. This is emphasised by the
use of the word "postponement" in R. 6 (1) (c),
of "adjournment" in R. 7 and of "adjournment" in
R. I. Therefore, we reach the position that O, 9,

Page 9 of 19
C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

R. 6 (1) (a), which, is the rule relied on, is
confined to the first hearing of the suit and does
not 'per se' apply to "subsequent hearings-

25. Now to analyse R. 6 and examine its bearing on
the first hearing. When the plaintiff appears and the
defendant does not appear when the suit is called on
for hearing, if it is proved that the summons was duly
served
"(a) ... the Court may proceed 'ex-parte' "
The whole question is, what do these words
mean- Judicial opinion is sharply divided about
this. On the one side is the view propounded by
Wallace, J., in that 'ex parte' merely means in
the absence of the other party, and on the other
side is the view of O'Sullivan J., in that it means
that the Court is at liberty to proceed without
the defendant till the termination of the
proceedings unless the defendant shows good
cause for his non-appearance. The remaining
decisions, and there are many of them, take one
or the other of those two views.

26. In our opinion, Wallace J., and the other Judges
who adopt the same line of thought are right. As we
have already observed, our laws of procedure are
based on the principle that, as far as possible, no
proceeding in a Court of law should be conducted to
the detriment of a person in his absence. There are of
course exceptions, and this is one of them. When the
defendant has been served and has been afforded an
opportunity of appealing, then, if he does not appear,
the Court may proceed in his absence. But, be it
noted, the Court is not directed to make an 'ex parte'
order.
Of course the fact that it is proceeding 'ex parte'
will be recorded in the minutes of its
proceedings but that is merely a statement of
the fact and is not an order made against the
defendant in the sense of an 'ex parte' decree or

Page 10 of 19
C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

other 'ex parte' order which the Court is
authorised to make. All that R. 6 (1) (a) does is
to remove a bar and no more. It merely
authorises the Court to do that which it could
not have done without this authority namely to
proceed in the absence of one of the parties.
The contrast in language between R. 7 and R. 13
emphasises this.
27. Now, as we have seen, the first hearing is either
for the settlement of issued or for final hearing. If it is
only for the settlement of issue, then the Court
cannot pass an 'ex parte' decree on that date because
of the proviso to O. 15 R. 3 (1) which provides that
that can only be done when
"the parties or their pleaders are present and
none of them objects"
On the other hand, if it is for final hearing an 'ex
parte' decree can be passed, and if it is passed,
then O. 9, R. 13 comes into play and before the
decree is set aside the Court is required to
'make an order to set it aside'. Contrast this
with R. 7 which does not require the setting
aside of what is commonly, though erroneously,
known as "the 'ex parte' order."
No order is contemplated by the Code, and
therefore no order to set aside the order is
contemplated either. But a decree is a command
or order of the court and so can only be set
aside by another order made and recorded with
due formality.

28. Then comes R. 7 which provides that if at 'an
adjourned ' the defendant appears and shows good
cause for his "'previous' non-appearance", he can be
heard in answer to the suit. "as if he had a on the day
fixed for his appearance." This cannot be read to
mean, as it has been by some learned Judges, that he
cannot be allowed to appear at all if, he does not
show good cause. All it means is that he cannot be
relegated to the position be would have occupied if he
had appeared.

Page 11 of 19
C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

29. We turn next to the 'adjourned' hearing That is
dealt with in O. 17, R. 1(1) empowers the Court to
adjourn the bearing and whenever it does so it must
fix a day "for the further hearing of the suit", except
that once the hearing of the evidence has begun it
must go on from day to day till all the witnesses in
attendance have been examined unless the Court
considers, for reasons to be recorded in writing, that
a further adjournment is necessary. Then follows R. 2
-
"Where, on any day to which the hearing of the
suit is adjourned, the parties or any of them fail
to appear, the Court may proceed to dispose of
the suit in one of the modes directed in that
behalf by O. 9 or make such other order as it
thinks fit".

30. Now R. 2 only applies when one or both of the
parties do not appear 'on the day fixed' for the
adjourned hearing'. In that event, the Court is thrown
back to O. 9 with the additional power to make "such
order as it thinks fit". When it goes back to O. 9 it
finds that it is again empowered to proceed 'ex parte'
on the adjourned hearing in the same way as it did, or
could have done, if one or other of the parties had not
appeared at the first hearing, that is to say, the right
to proceed 'ex parte' is a right which accrues from
day to day because at each adjourned hearing the
Court is thrown back to O. 9, R. 6.
It is not a mortgaging of the future but only
applies to the particular hearing at which a
party was afforded the chance to appear and did
not avail himself of it. Therefore, if a party does
appear on "the day to which the hearing of the
suit is adjourned", he cannot be stopped from
participating in the proceedings simply because
he did not appear on the first or some other
hearing.

Page 12 of 19
C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

31. But though he has the right to appear at an
adjourned hearing, he has no right to set back the
hands of the clock. Order 9, R. 7 makes that clear.
Therefore, unless he can show good cause, he must
accept all that has gone before and be content to
proceed from the stage at which he comes in. But
what exactly does that import- To determine that it
will be necessary to hark back to the first hearing.
32. We have already Seen that when a summons is
issued to the defendant it must state whether the
hearing is for the settlement of issues only or for the
final disposal of the suit (O. 5, R. 5). In either event,
O. 8, R. 1 comes into play and if the defendant does
not present a written statement of his defence, the
Court can insist that he shall; and if, on being
required to do so, he fails to comply
"the Court may pronounce Judgement against
him, or make such order in relation to the suit
as it thinks fit." (O. 8, R. 10).
This invests the Court with the widest possible
discretion and enables it to see that justice is
done to 'both' sides; and also to witnesses if they
are present; a matter on which we shall deal
later.

33. We have seen that if the defendant does not
appear at the first hearing, the Court can proceed 'ex
parte', which means that it can proceed without a
written statement; and O. 9, R. 7 makes it clear that
unless good cause is shown the defendant cannot be
relegated to the position that he would have occupied
if he had appeared. That means that he cannot put in
a written statement unless be is allowed to do so, and
if the case is one in which the court considers a
written statement should have been put in, the
consequences entailed by O. 8, R. 10 must be
suffered.

What those consequences should be in a given case is
for the Court in the exercise of its judicial discretion,

Page 13 of 19
C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

to determine. No hard and fast rule can be laid down.
In some cases an order awarding costs to the plaintiff
would meet the ends of justice; an adjournment can
be granted or a written statement can be considered
on the spot and issues framed. In other cases, the
ends of justice may call for more drastic action.”

14. In case of Vijay Singh Versus Shanti Devi, 2017 (8)
SCC 837, the Hon’ble Apex Court, in para 12, referred to O 9 R
6 of the Code, more particularly, clause (a) to held that when
summons are duly served and the defendant does not put in
appearance, the court may make an order that the suit would
be heard ex parte and passing of such decree in view of the
aforesaid provisions of law, is valid and legal decree. Para 12
reads as under:-

“12. We are only concerned with clause (a), which
provides that if summons are duly served and the
defendant does not put in appearance, the court may
make an order that the suit would be heard ex parte.
In this case, this was the procedure followed and an
ex parte decree was passed. There is no manner of
doubt that an ex parte decree is also a valid decree. It
has the same force as a decree which is passed on
contest. As long as the ex parte decree is not recalled
or set aside, it is legal and binding upon the parties.”

15. In Bhanu Kumar Jain Versus Archana Kumar, 2005
(1) SCC 787, in para 38, the Hon’ble Apex Court held as
under:-

“38. The dichotomy, in our opinion, can be resolved
by holding that whereas the defendant would not be
permitted to raise a contention as regards the

Page 14 of 19
C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

correctness or otherwise of the order posting the suit
for ex-parte hearing by the trial court and/ or
existence of a sufficient case for non-appearance of
the defendant before it, it would be open to him to
argue in the First Appeal filed by him against Sec.
96(2) of the Code on the merit of the suit so as to
enable him to contend that the materials brought on
record by the plaintiffs were not sufficient for passing
a decree in his favour or the suit was otherwise not
maintainable. Lack of jurisdiction of the court can
also be a possible plea in such an appeal. We,
however, agree with Mr. Choudhary that the
'Explanation' appended to Or. 9 R. 13 of the Code
shall receive a strict construction as was held by this
court in Rani Choudhury (supra), P. Kiran Kumar
(supra) and Shyam Sundar Sarma V/s. Pannalal
Jaiswal and Others.”

16. As regards the first ground, it is not the defendant's case
that no summons was served upon him. In fact, it is a case
where the defendant appeared before the court, sought
adjournments for filing of his written statement, and then
subsequently chose not to appear. Thereby, the first ground
for setting aside ex parte decree is not available to the
defendant.

17. As regards the second ground, the learned counsel for
the defendant failed to place on record a single circumstance
sufficient to explain or justify the defendant's absence from
the suit proceedings when the suit was called for hearing.

18. During the course of hearing of the appeal, this Court
queried the learned counsel for the defendant as to whether
the defendant is ready and willing to deposit the principal

Page 15 of 19
C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

amount decreed by the learned trial court into the court, with
a view to considering setting aside the ex parte decree and
remanding the matter for fresh consideration, and thereby
permitting the defendant to lead evidence in his defence. The
learned counsel for the defendant bluntly declined and flatly
submitted that his client is not ready and willing to deposit
any portion of the principal decreed amount.

19. In view of the above, the defendant has failed to make
out any case for setting aside the ex parte decree under Order
9 Rule 13 of the Code. The judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court
in case of G. Ratna Raj (supra) defines what constitutes an
ex parte decree, and the ratio thereof, when applied to the
facts of the present case, does not assist the defendant. It is
nobody's case that the decree was not an ex parte decree, it is
undisputedly an ex parte decree passed in the absence of the
defendant. However, the argument on this ground therefore
fails.

20. The defendant chose not to remain present on his own
volition and choice. Even, the defendant has not preferred
any application to set aside ex parte decree under O 9 R 13.
Yet, this Court has examined the consideration for setting
aside ex parte decree in view of scope of First Appeal u/s 96 of
the Code.

21. As regards the second contention of non-application of
mind, the plaintiff filed the suit to recover the outstanding

Page 16 of 19
C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

amount of Rs. 42,06,250/- for selling brass parts and
hardware materials to the defendant. The impugned
judgment, in paragraphs 10, 11 and 12, contained references
to the purchase of potatoes (Rs.4,76,065/-) and to the plaintiff
company's entitlement to telephonic services (Rs. 27,535),
which are plainly unrelated to the plaintiff's actual case.
However, these were typographical errors that crept into the
impugned judgment. The learned trial court has, under
Section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, rectified the
said typographical errors by passing a fresh order /
rectification order at Exhibit 47. These typographical errors,
having been duly rectified, cannot be characterised as non-
application of mind. Similarly, the discrepancy between the
rate of interest mentioned in the reasoning part of the
judgment (6% per annum) and the operative part of the
judgment (18% per annum) was also a typographical error
and was rectified by the same order at Exhibit 47. This too
cannot amount to non-application of mind.

22. In order to prove his case in the ex parte proceedings,
the plaintiff, in addition to entering the witness box, produced
the following documentary evidence:

Exhibit No. Document / Description

Exhibit 17 Original bills / invoices (Bill Nos. 31, 38, 39,
to 21 42, 46) for supply of brass parts and other
items to the defendant, covering the period
from 26th July 2017 onwards.

Page 17 of 19
C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

Exhibit 22 C Forms issued for the aforesaid bills.
and 23

Exhibit 24 Original ledger accounts for the period 1st
and 25 January 2016 to 31st July 2017 and 8th April
2017 to 31st October [year not stated], along
with Chartered Accountant certificates.

Exhibit 26 Copies of cheques forwarded by the
to 34 defendant towards payment of the
outstanding amount, returned unpaid.

Exhibit 37, Ledger account of the defendant, along with
38, 39, 40 Chartered Accountant certificate.

Exhibit 47 Rectification order passed by the learned trial
court under Section 152 of the Code of Civil
Procedure, 1908, correcting the typographical
errors in the original judgment.

23. The entire evidence went unchallenged, as the
defendant failed to participate in the trial. This Court finds
that the plaintiff, in the ex parte suit, duly discharged the
burden of proving its case against the defendant. The decree,
though passed ex parte, is a valid and effective decree. The
defendant failed to demonstrate any circumstances, illegality,
or violation of law in the judgment and decree appealed from.
There is no merit in the grounds urged by the defendant in
either count.

24. In view of the above, the defendant has failed on both
counts. The defendant has not made out any case to set aside

Page 18 of 19
C/FA/2986/2021 CAV JUDGMENT DATED: 10/07/2026

the ex parte decree. The defendant has further failed to
establish that the learned trial court passed the decree
without application of mind. Thereby, this Court finds no
reason to interfere with the impugned decree.

25. Accordingly, the First Appeal fails and is dismissed.

26. Consequently, CA does not survive and stands disposed
of accordingly. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands
vacated forthwith.

27. Registry is directed to return back the R & P, if any, to
the concerned Court forthwith.

(J. C. DOSHI,J)
SHEKHAR P. BARVE

Original copy of this order has been signed by the Hon'ble Judge.
Digitally signed by: SHEKHAR PRAFULBHAI BARVE(HC00200), Principal Pvt. Secretary, at High Court of Gujarat on 10/07/2026 13:33:33

Page 19 of 19