Shri Digant v. P.D.T. Trading Co. & Ors.

Civil Appeal No. 13801/2025 

MANOJ MISRA and JOYMALYA BAGCHI, JJ

Overview

The appeal arose out of a judgment of the Bombay High Court (Nagpur Bench), whereby it had set aside the District Judge’s order and remitted the landlord-tenant dispute to the Small Causes Court for fresh adjudication. The question arising before the Supreme Court was whether the defendants (tenants) were deprived of a fair opportunity in the Trial Court when their counsel filed a ‘precis’ stating ‘no instructions’. The Supreme Court looked into whether the High Court was justified in remitting the matter only on this point when the factual background and the conduct of the defendants were seen in proper perspective.

Facts

The appellant–landlord filed a Civil Suit for possession under Sections 16(1)(g) and 16(1)(n) of the Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999. As the summons were duly served, defendants 1–3 did not appear. The Trial Court, therefore, proceeded ex parte against them. Later, they moved an application for recall of the ex parte order. The said application was allowed, and they filed written statements.

During the proceedings, their advocate filed a pursis stating that though he had issued a notice dated 20.11.2014, the defendants had not got in touch with him and as such he had “no instructions.” The said notice was issued by RPAD. Significantly, the pursis did not mention that the advocate was withdrawing his vakalatnama.

The trial was continued by the Small Causes Court, recorded the evidence of the plaintiff and decreed the suit on 04.03.2015. Defendants preferred appeal under Section 34 of the 1999 Act, contending, inter alia, that after filing the pursis, the Court ought to have issued a notice so as to direct them to appoint another lawyer and that they are not granted sufficient opportunity to defend the suit.

The District Judge had rejected this contention holding that the pursis was not a withdrawal of vakalatnama and the defendants never clarified as to whether they received the notice sent by their own advocate. The High Court, however, set aside this finding and remitted the case to the Small Causes Court.

Legal Issues

• Whether the Trial Court erred in proceeding with the suit after the defendants’ advocate had filed a pursis indicating lack of instructions.
• Whether the defendants were deprived of a reasonable opportunity of hearing by alleged non-compliance with the procedural requirements for withdrawal of vakalatnama.
• Whether the High Court was justified in remanding the matter despite defendants’ failure to answer vital questions, including receipt of RPAD notice by their advocate.

Decision

The Supreme Court considered the argument and observed that the District Judge had dealt with the issue elaborately. Interference by the High Court was not justified as the plea of the defendants about not getting an opportunity was unsupported and belied by the record. Accordingly, the Supreme Court allowed the appeal by setting aside the High Court’s order of remand and restored the District Judge’s judgment that upheld the decree passed by the Trial Court.