The Madras High Court has held that the mistake or error committed by a lawyer need not affect the interest of the litigants or the merits involved in the case. The High Court added that this is the reason why a lenient view is taken while setting aside an ex parte decree passed.

The Original Side Appeal was instituted to assail the order dismissing the application seeking the setting aside of an ex parte decree in a suit.

The Division Bench of Justice S.M.Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq held, “The mistake or error committed by a lawyer need not affect the interest of the litigants or the merits involved in the case. This exactly is the reason why the Courts normally take a lenient view while setting aside the exparte decree passed. However, the intention of the parties allowing the Court to pass an ex-parte decree are also to be taken into consideration. Only in exceptional cases where the conduct of the parties is totally indifferent, exparte decrees are normally passed.”

Advocate S.Kalyana Raman represented the Appellant, while Advocate V.S.Senthil Kumar represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The first respondent instituted a suit claiming damages for publishing and circulating defamatory content on YouTube/Social media. Since the contents uploaded through YouTube damaged the image and reputation of the first respondent, the suit was instituted, and notice was issued. The appellant (first defendant) received notice and engaged counsel to represent the suit on his behalf. The appellant/defendant had been set ex parte due to the non-appearance of the counsel representing the appellant’s case before the Trial Court. Consequently, an ex parte decree came to be passed, and the appellant’s application to set aside the same was dismissed by the Trial Court. Thus, the Original Side Appeal came to be instituted.

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, noted, “This Court is of the considered view that the service of summons/notice is a matter of record, which can be verified by the Court, irrespective of the statement made by either of the parties.”

It was further noticed by the Bench that the counsel representing the appellant before the Trial Court failed to appear on more than one occasion, resulting in the passing of an ex parte decree. The Bench took note of the appellant’s submission that in the event of providing an opportunity to the appellant, he will not seek any unnecessary adjournment or make any attempt to prolong or protract the suit proceedings.

The Bench made it clear that the appellant would co-operate for the earlier disposal of the suit in all respects. “Though the learned counsel for the appellant made a request to fix a time limit for the disposal of the suit, it would be inappropriate for this Court to fix such a time limit, as the cases are to be disposed of by the Court concerned. However, the Trial Court is requested to expedite the suit”, it held.

Thus, allowing the Original Side Appeal and setting aside the impugned order, the Bench restored the suit.

Cause Title: Joe Micheal Praveen v. Apsara Reddy (Case No.: OSA No. 323 of 2025)

Appearance

Appellant: Advocates S.Kalyana Raman, R.S.Mangala Kumar

Respondent: Advocate V.S.Senthil Kumar

Click here to read/download Order


Madras HCJustice SM SubramaniamJustice Mohammed Shaffiq

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.