At the conclusion of a default inquiry Defendant sought to purge default under Section 86(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, claiming incapacity due to spinal injury from a fall. Applications to set aside ex-parte decrees must be supported by credible and consistent evidence. Courts retain discretion to assess the probative value of documents, even if admitted without objection or marked “subject to proof.”
Civil Procedure Code, Sections 85 and 86(2), addresses ex parte decrees, applications to purge defaults, the burden of proof, and the evidential value of documents marked “subject to proof.”
The Plaintiff instituted an action in the District Court of Negombo seeking cancellation of a deed, ejectment of the Defendant, and damages. Summons was duly served, but the Defendant failed to appear, resulting in an ex-parte decree. Upon service of the decree, the Defendant sought to purge default under Section 86(2) of the Civil Procedure Code, claiming incapacity due to spinal injury from a fall.
The District Court rejected the application after considering contradictions in the Defendant’s testimony, inconsistencies among witnesses, and the inadequacy of the Ayurvedic medical certificate (produced subject to proof and unsupported by the physician’s testimony). The Provincial High Court affirmed.
On further appeal, the Supreme Court emphasized that:
Applications to set aside ex-parte decrees must be supported by credible and consistent evidence.
Courts retain discretion to assess the probative value of documents, even if admitted without objection or marked “subject to proof.”
Mere production of a medical certificate without proper corroboration is insufficient to establish “reasonable grounds” to purge default.
The defendant’s failure to act until after serving a decree undermined the bona fides of his application.
Held: The High Court correctly upheld the District Court’s refusal to set aside the ex-parte decree. Questions of law answered in the negative. An appeal is dismissed with costs.
Comments
Post a Comment