Suppression of material facts regarding knowledge of a decree disentitles a party to discretionary relief under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

The Appellant (Ajit Kumar) was impleaded as a legal representative of his deceased father, Rajbir Singh, in a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by Respondent No. 1

On 09.05.2022, an ex parte decree was passed against the Appellant.

The Appellant subsequently filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the decree, claiming he was never served with summons because they were sent to his "old address" (Village Ghitomi) where his estranged brother resided, while he had shifted to a "new address" (Village Gadaipur) in 2014

The Trial Court dismissed this application on 09.12.2023

The Appellant challenged this dismissal, asserting he only learned of the decree on 19.09.2022

1. Whether the Appellant was entitled to the setting aside of the ex parte decree on the grounds of non-service of summons and lack of knowledge of the proceedings

2. Whether the Appellant’s conduct involving the suppression of material facts disentitled him to discretionary relief under Order IX Rule 13 CPC

The Court applied Section 104 and Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) regarding appeals against orders refusing to set aside ex parte decrees

It relied on the principle that a litigant must approach the court with "clean hands," as established in K.D. Sharma v. SAIL, which holds that suppression of material facts constitutes an abuse of the court process

Further, it cited Dalip Singh v. State of U.P., emphasizing that a lack of candid disclosure disentitles a party to equitable or discretionary relief

The Court found the Appellant’s claim of ignorance regarding the suit and decree to be demonstrably false based on judicial records. First, the Appellant had executed a Vakalatnama on 11.07.2022 and his counsel had inspected the case file, which explicitly mentioned the 09.05.2022 decree date

Second, the Appellant’s appearance was recorded by the Trial Court as early as 18.09.2021

Third, the Appellant was impleaded as a respondent in an appeal filed by his brother (RFA 288/2022) regarding the same decree, where his appearance was noted on 15.07.2022

The Court noted that even though summons were served at the old address, the Appellant was clearly aware of the litigation. By claiming he only discovered the decree in September 2022, the Appellant willfully suppressed prior knowledge and active participation in related proceedings

The Court concluded there was no infirmity in the impugned order as the Appellant’s conduct amounted to an abuse of the process of law. Relevant stay applications were also disposed of