Courts Cannot Blindly Pass Orders In Ex-Parte Proceedings Without Establishing Rights Or Liability: Kerala High Court
These observations were made in the context of an eviction order passed by a Rent Control Court in an ex-parte proceeding.
Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque, Justice P. Krishna Kumar, Kerala High Court
The Kerala High Court ruled that in ex-parte proceedings, a court can only pass an order in favor of the party present if they can effectively establish their rights or the liability of the opposing party.
These observations were made in the context of an eviction order passed by a Rent Control Court in an ex-parte proceeding, where the court had granted the eviction order solely based on the unrebutted evidence presented by the plaintiff.
The Division Bench of Justice A. Muhamed Mustaque and Justice P. Krishna Kumar said, “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.”
Advocate G. Sreekumar appeared for the petitioner and Advocate Rajesh R Kormath appeared for the respondents.
The Court observed that the absence of the opposing party does not relieve the court from its duty to follow fundamental legal principles. A party seeking an order must still prove their case to the court’s satisfaction, and the burden of proof remains on them, even in the absence of the opposing party. The Court made it clear that it is not the role of the court to blindly grant an order to the prosecuting party merely because the defending party is not present.
However, the Court acknowledged that the burden of proof in ex-parte proceedings is not as rigorous as in ordinary proceedings. The party present only needs to present prima facie evidence supporting their claims, showing that the relevant facts necessary for the cause of action exist. If the court is satisfied with the evidence provided, it can issue a favorable order.
Additionally, the Court pointed out that even if the case is heard ex-parte, the absent party still has the option to join the proceedings at a later stage by accepting the decisions made in their absence.
The High Court found that, despite the ex-parte nature of the hearing, the Rent Control Court had not adhered to Rule 11(8) of the Kerala Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Rules, 1979. This rule mandates that an order must be issued in writing after considering both oral and documentary evidence, and it must be made in a manner consistent with justice, equity, and good conscience.
Furthermore, Rule 11 stipulates that the court should be satisfied that the landlord’s claim is bona fide. The Kerala High Court stressed that it is not sufficient for the court to simply be satisfied with the claim, but the process by which the court arrived at its conclusion also matters. In this case, the High Court found that the Rent Control Court had not followed the required procedures and thus set aside the eviction order.
The eviction order was set aside on these grounds.
Cause Title: Sajeevan Swamy v. Johnson (Died) & Ors., [2025:KER:12154]
