TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether non-service of notice of transfer and hearing dates to a party, whose counsel had not been engaged by her, violated the mandatory transfer procedure and furnished sufficient ground to set aside the ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13.
Analysis: The transfer order required the parties to be informed of the transfer and the date of appearance before the transferee court. The appellant was not represented by the counsel who appeared for the other defendants, and there was no notice of transfer or subsequent dates served on her. The expression used in the transfer rule was "parties", not "interested parties", and the requirement was held to be mandatory and subject to strict compliance. In the absence of service on the appellant, the findings that she was not interested in defending the suit could not sustain the ex parte decree.
Conclusion: Non-service of notice of transfer to the appellant was a sufficient reason to set aside the ex parte decree and the rejection of the Order IX Rule 13 application was unsustainable.
Ratio Decidendi: Where a transfer rule mandates notice to the parties on transfer of a suit, strict compliance is required, and failure to serve a party who is not represented by counsel constitutes sufficient ground to set aside an ex parte decree.
TaxTMI 
