# BANK OF INDIA v. M/S MEHTA BROTHERS - **Citation:** [2008] 13 S.C.R. 900 - **Court:** Supreme Court of India - **Decided:** 2008-09-23 - **Case number:** Civil Appeal No. 2982 oF 2001 - **Bench:** Tarun Chatterjee, Dalveer Bhandari - **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/bank-of-india-v-m-s-mehta-brothers-23652 - **Pages:** 25 ## Headnote Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 9 r. 13 and its proviso - Scope of - In an application for setting aside the exc parte decree whether decree passed in favour of some of the contesting defendants can be set aside - Held: If the decree is indivisible, it can be set aside not only against the defendant who applied for setting aside the ex-parte decree, but also against all or any of the other defendants, regardless of the D fact whether they appeared, contested or not - The term "decree" in the first proviso actually meant a decree in general and not ex-parte decree. A suit filed by appellant-Bank was decreed ex-parte against respondent-Bank, and the same was dismissed E qua respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (the contesting defendants). Respondent-Bank filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Single Judge of High Court set aside the decree in toto i.e. even qua respondent Nos. 1 to 5, relying on proviso to Order 9 Rule F 13. Division Bench held that Single Judge could have set ) - aside only the ex-parte decree against the respondentBank and could not have set aside the decree in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 1-lence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1.1 A reading of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC would show that an ex-parte decree was ordinarily to be set aside only against the defendant against whom the decree was ·- i ex-parte and the suit was to be revived only qua the said H 900 BANK OF INDIA v. M/S MEHTA BROTHERS 901 & ORS. defendant applying for setting aside the ex-parte decree. A It is true that the heading of Order 9 Rule 13 starts with the expression "setting aside of an ex-parte decree". But, if the entire provision is read, it would be clear that the said provision provides that the decree must be ex-parte .. against ona defendant or ex-parte against all th~ defendants. The proviso also does not provide that the decree B can be set aside against the defendants, other than the applying defei1dant, only if it is ex-parte against them also. The proviso confers powers on the Court to set aside the entire decree where the said decree was of such a nature that it IS expedient in the interest of justice to set aside c the decree as against any or all of the other defendants also. The only requirement for the applicability of this Order is that the decree should be ex-parte against the defendant applying to have it set aside. Thus, the language ., of the Order does not suggest that for the Order to apply, D the decree must be entirely ex-parte. [Paras 13 and 14) (9140-E 913 B-C 914-AB] 1.2 If the proviso was to apply only if the decree was ex-parte against the other defendants also, that would have rendered the proviso practically infructuous, as in such a E situation, the other defendants would have an independent right to have the decree set aside against them. The idea behind the proviso is that if the decree is being set aside as against some defendants, and the decree as -. against the other defendants is connected, interlinked or F dependent on that part of the decree which is being set aside, the decree may have to be set aside as against the other defendants also. [Para 14) (914 0-F] 1.3 The term "decree" in the first proviso actually meant a decree in general. The proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 G does not use the expression "ex- parte decree" but it had ' ... used the term "decree". If the words used subsequent to the word 'decree' in the proviso were to mean ex-parte decree, the Legislature would have expressly provided so. Therefore, from the intention of the Legislature it canH 902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A not be said that the ex-parte decree can only be set aside and not a decree passed in toto. Frorn the second proviso and also from the explanation, it is evident that the word "decree" is preceded by the word "ex-parte''. This would effectively mean that the Legislature while drafting s the proviso Nc.1, intentionally omitted "Px-parte" befor~ th ## Text _Characters 0–39,879 of 52,273. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39879 for what follows._ [2008] 13 S.C.R. 900 A BANK OF INDIA \/. M/S MEHTA BROTHERS & ORS. (Civil Appeal No. 2982 oF 2001) B SEPTEMBER 23, 2008. [TARUN CHATTERJEE AND DALVEER BHANDARI JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - 0. 9 r. 13 and its proviso - Scope of - In an application for setting aside the exc parte decree whether decree passed in favour of some of the contesting defendants can be set aside - Held: If the decree is indivisible, it can be set aside not only against the defendant who applied for setting aside the ex-parte decree, but also against all or any of the other defendants, regardless of the D fact whether they appeared, contested or not - The term "decree" in the first proviso actually meant a decree in general and not ex-parte decree. A suit filed by appellant-Bank was decreed ex-parte against respondent-Bank, and the same was dismissed E qua respondent Nos. 1 to 5 (the contesting defendants). Respondent-Bank filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Single Judge of High Court set aside the decree in toto i.e. even qua respondent Nos. 1 to 5, relying on proviso to Order 9 Rule F 13. Division Bench held that Single Judge could have set ) - aside only the ex-parte decree against the respondentBank and could not have set aside the decree in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. 1-lence the present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1.1 A reading of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC would show that an ex-parte decree was ordinarily to be set aside only against the defendant against whom the decree was ·- i ex-parte and the suit was to be revived only qua the said H 900 BANK OF INDIA v. M/S MEHTA BROTHERS 901 & ORS. defendant applying for setting aside the ex-parte decree. A It is true that the heading of Order 9 Rule 13 starts with the expression "setting aside of an ex-parte decree". But, if the entire provision is read, it would be clear that the said provision provides that the decree must be ex-parte .. against ona defendant or ex-parte against all th~ defendants. The proviso also does not provide that the decree B can be set aside against the defendants, other than the applying defei1dant, only if it is ex-parte against them also. The proviso confers powers on the Court to set aside the entire decree where the said decree was of such a nature that it IS expedient in the interest of justice to set aside c the decree as against any or all of the other defendants also. The only requirement for the applicability of this Order is that the decree should be ex-parte against the defendant applying to have it set aside. Thus, the language ., of the Order does not suggest that for the Order to apply, D the decree must be entirely ex-parte. [Paras 13 and 14) (9140-E 913 B-C 914-AB] 1.2 If the proviso was to apply only if the decree was ex-parte against the other defendants also, that would have rendered the proviso practically infructuous, as in such a E situation, the other defendants would have an independent right to have the decree set aside against them. The idea behind the proviso is that if the decree is being set aside as against some defendants, and the decree as -. against the other defendants is connected, interlinked or F dependent on that part of the decree which is being set aside, the decree may have to be set aside as against the other defendants also. [Para 14) (914 0-F] 1.3 The term "decree" in the first proviso actually meant a decree in general. The proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 G does not use the expression "ex- parte decree" but it had ' ... used the term "decree". If the words used subsequent to the word 'decree' in the proviso were to mean ex-parte decree, the Legislature would have expressly provided so. Therefore, from the intention of the Legislature it canH 902 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A not be said that the ex-parte decree can only be set aside and not a decree passed in toto. Frorn the second proviso and also from the explanation, it is evident that the word "decree" is preceded by the word "ex-parte''. This would effectively mean that the Legislature while drafting s the proviso Nc.1, intentionally omitted "Px-parte" befor~ the word "decree" because they intended to mean decree in general. Therefore, a decree can be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants, regardless of the fact whether they appeared, contested or not. [Paras 14 and C 15] [917-A-B, 914-G 916-A-B, D-E; E-F] 1.4 The question whether a contested decree by some of the defendants can be set aside while considering the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree against one of the defendants, would depend on the naD ture of reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in his plaint and the nature of the decree in question. If the decree is indivisible, the court would be at liberty to set aside the decree not only against the defendant who applied for setting aside the ex-parte decree passed against him, but also as E against all or any of the other defendants. In the instant case considering the issues framed in the present suit and the reliefs claimed by the appellant-Bank and the findings arrived at on such issues, the Single Judge was fully justified in restoring the suit in toto and was correct in F setting aside the entire decree and restore the suit in its entirety on an application under Order 9 Rule 13 and was also correct in the approach of Order 9 Rule 13. The ex parte decree was indivisible and rightly set aside not only against respondent No.6 but also against respondent G Nos.1 to 5. [Paras 16, 21 and 22] [917-C-D 922 D-E 923-D] 1.5 In view of the conclusion that the decree was indivisible and was dependent on the decision of the issues, and hence was not possible for the court to set aside the ex parte decree only against respondent No.6. ThereH fore, it cannot be said that it was not open to the appel- ) - BANK OF INDIA v. M/S MEHTA BROTHERS & ORS. 903 lant-Bank to restore the suit in toto on the application A under Order 9 Rule 13 filed by respondent No.6, because the appellant-Bank did not choose to prefer any appeal against the order of dismissal of the suit passed in favour of respondent Nos. 1 to 5. That apart, the Single Judge having set aside the decree in toto and restored thi: suit in B its entirety, it was not necessary for the appellant-Bank to file any appeal against the dismissal of the suit as against respondent Nos. 1 to 5. [Para 23] [923-G-H; 924-A-B] Khargesh Chandra Vs. Chandra Kanta Barua AIR 1954, Assam 183 - disapproved C Case Law Reference AIR 1954, Assam 183 Disapproved Para 20 ., CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 2982 D of 2001 From the final Judgment/Order dated 9/11/2000 of the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in F.A.O. (O.S) No. 78of1991 K.N. Bhatt, Deepak Khurana and KumKum Sen for the E Appellant. Rajiv Sawhney, Jayant Bhusan, Sanjeev Anand, Dibya Nishant, Pravin Balhadur, Kanika Gomber, Mallika Joshi and Rajan Narain for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by TARUN CHATTERJEE, J. 1. The appellant - Bank of In~ dia, a body corporate constituted under the Banking Companies [Acquisition and Transfer of Undertakings] Act, 1970 filed F a suit for recovery of Rs.91,58,480.09 against the defendantsG respondents on 301h of August, 1982, inter alia, alleging that on the request of defendant nos. 1 to 5, namely, M/s Mehta Brothers and Ors. on 261h of June, 1979, the appellant Bank issued an irrevocable Letter of Credit for US $ 6, 10,900, equivalent to Indian currency about Rs.50,00,000/-, in favour of M/s Bentrex H 904 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A and Co., Singapore. The said Letter of Credit was expressly made subject to the terms and conditions of Uniform Customs. and Practice for Documentary Credits [1974] Revision, International Chamber of Commerce Publication No.290. On 1st of September, 1979, the beneficiary drew a site draft for an amount B of US$ 6, 10, 7 40 and presented the same along with other documents to Deutsche Bank Asia [formerly known as European Asian Bank], a body corporate incorporated in West Germany being a foreign company under the Companies Act, 1956 - defendant No.6 - respondent no. 6 (in short 'the respondent C No.6') for negotiations. On 4th of September, 1979, respondent no.6 after negotiating the documents dispatched the original and duplicate set of the documents from Singapore directly to the Chandni Chowk Branch of the appellant Bank and called upon the New York Branch of the appellant Bank for reimburseD ment under the Letter of Credit. The appellant Bank further alleged that this was done without furnishing the necessary certificate of compliance which was required under the terms of letters of credit. On 5th of September, 1979, the New York Branch of the appellant Bank on receipt of the aforesaid claim, in good faith, paid on account, without prejudice, the said amount of US E $ 6,10,"740. On 13th of September, 1979 the appellant Bank received the documents from respondent no.6 and found that there were many discrepancies in the documents and they were not as per the Uniform Customs and Practice of Documentary Credits [197 4 Revision]. On 14th of September, 1979, by a telex F the appellant Bank pointed out to respondent no.6 some of the discrepancies in the documents and stated that the documents were being held at its risk and responsibility. Respondent no.6 was requested to reverse the reimbursement already claimed by it from the New York Branch of the appellant Bank. On the G same day respondent no.6 by its telex to the appellant Bank rejected the claim of the appellant Bank alleging that these discrepancies were of minor nature and all the terms and conditions of the Letter of Credit were complied with. On 14th of September, 1979, Mehta Brothers- defendant nos. 1 to 5 - responH dent nos.1 to 5 (in short 'respondent nos. 1 to 5') also did not ' - BANK OF INDIA v. M/S MEHTA BROTHERS 905 & ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.] honour and return the documents as they were not at all in acA cordance with the terms of Letter of Credit. The appellant Bank - further alleged that respondent no.6 had failed and neglected to reply and reimburse to the appellant Bank the amount re- ·1 ceived by it from the New York Branch. Respondent no.6 had failed to furnish to the New York Branch of the appellant Bank B the certificates of compliance in terms of the said Letter of Credit, for that reason also respondent no.6 acted in breach of its obligation under the Letter of Credit to do so and, therefore, was not entitled to claim and return the payment received thereunder. Despite repeated requests and reminders, respondent nos. c 1 to 5 did not honour and return the said documents and went on contending that there were discrepancies in the documents. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 also stated that their claim with the insurance company was likely to be finalized soon and the amount ., payable thereunder shall be received by the appellant Bank diD rectly from the insurance company for the adjustment of the amount due and payable by them under the Letter of Credit. Respondent nos. 1 to 5 as also respondent no.6 had denied their respective liability to repay to the appellant Bank the amounts claimed by it and the appellant Bank was in doubt as E to the persons from whom it was entitled to redress, accordingly, the appellant Bank joined respondent nos.1 to 5 and respondent no.6 as parties to the suit in order to determine the question as to which of the defendants was liable to the appel- -·--. lant Bank and to what extent. If separate suits were brought against respondent nos. 1 to 5 and respondent no.6, common F question of law and fact would arise, therefore, the appellant Bank had a right to relief against respondent nos. 1 to 5 or re- ~ spondent no. 6. • 2. Upon the aforesaid allegations, the appellant Bank had G filed the aforesaid suit for recovery of Rs.91,58,480.08, being "'t " t~e amount of Letter of Credit and interest. Decree was claimed primarily against respondent no.6 and alternatively, against respondent nos. 1 to 5 in case, the court would come to the conclusion that respondent no.6 was not liable to pay any amount H 906 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A to the appellant Bank. It would be appropriate at this stage to reproduce the reliefs claimed in the suit itself which read as under: "[a] This Hon'ble Court will be pleased to decree and B order defendant no.6 to pay to the plaintiff the equivalent in rupees at the time of payment, the sum of US $11,46,492.99 together with interest thereon at 21% per annem with quarterly rests from the said 30th day of August, 1982 until! payment and costs of the suit and such further and other reliefs as this c Hon'ble Court may deem fit. [b] That in the event of this Hon'ble Court holding that defendant no.6 is not liable to pay any amount to the plaintiff, this Hon'ble Court will in the alternative be D pleased to decree and order defendant Nos. 1 to 5 jointly and each severally to pay to the plaintiff bank the said sum of Rs.91,58,480.00 with further interest at the 21 '% per annum with quarterly rests from the 30th day of August, 1982 until payment. E [<:] Costs of the suit and [d] Such other and other reliefs which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit.(. 3. On 24th of July, 1984 a written statement on behalf of F respondent no.6 was filed. Although, respondent no.6 filed the written statement but finally no body appeared on its behalf and accordingly the suit had proceeded against it ex parte. The suit was decreed on 10th of March, 1987 ex parte against respondent no.6 with costs. However, the suit against respondent nos. G 1 to 5 was dismissed on contest and they were left to bear their own costs. However, the appellant Bank did not file any appeal in so far as that part of the decree by which the suit against respondent nos. 1 to 5 had been dismissed. Accepting this position, on 4:" of April, 1988, two applications were filed by H respondent no.6 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civ!I ) -- f BANK OF INDIA v. M/S MEHTA BROTHERS 907 & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.] Procedure (in short the 'Code') for setting aside the ex parte A decree and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. By an order dated 28th of February, 1991, the learned single judge of the High Court allowed both the applications filed by respondent no.6. Accordingly, the ex parte decree B passed against respondent no.6 was set aside subject to payment of Rs.25,000/·· as costs out of which Rs.15,000/-was payable to the appellant Bank and Rs.10,000/- to respondent nos. 1 to 5. While setting aside the ex parte decree against respondent no.6, by the same order, the learned Single Judge also set c aside that portion of the decree whereby the suit against respondent nos. 1 to 5 was dismissed. To set aside that part of the decree, the learned single judge had relied on the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment of the learned single judge, respondent nos. 1 to 5 D filed first appeal being FAO [OS] No.78of1991 before the High Court of Delhi. The appellant Bank also filed FAO [OS] No.100 of 1991. 4. By the judgment and final order dated 9th of November, 2000 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Delhi in E FAO (OS) No. 78 of 1991, the Division Bench had set aside the order dated 281h of February, 1991 of the learned single judge to the extent that the said order had set aside an ex parte decree dated 101h of March, 1987 dismissing the suit of the appellant Bank against respondent nos. 1 to 5. In so far as the reF spondent no.6 was concerned, the Division Bench of the High Court affirmed the order dated 28th of February, 1991 setting aside the ex pa rte decree dated 101h of March, 1987 passed against the respondent no. 6. It is against this judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court, the appellant Bank filed this . G special leave petition which, on grant of leave, was heard in presence of the learned counsel for the parties. 5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined the judgments of the High Court inch.1ding the Division Bench as well as the Single Judge. We have also considH 908 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S. C.R. A ered the materials available on record including the plaint of the suit of the appellant Bank in respect of which the reliefs claimed by it which has been noted herein earlier and the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code and the objections thereto. 6. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the pars ties and after going through the materials on record, the moot question that needs to be decided in this appeal is as follows: "Whether, under the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, a decree passed in favour of the c contesting defendants can be set aside as against a defendant also being part of the same suit, on an application made by him, for setting aside an ex-parte decree against him." 7. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appelD lant Bank vehemently argued before us that on account of the ex-parte decree against the respondent no. 6, the alternative claim against respondent nos. 1 to 5 was dismissed without trial, therefore, the Division Bench of the High Court was in error in setting aside the decree of dismissal passed in favour of E respondent nos. 1 to 5. Thus, according to Mr. K. N. Bhatt, learned senior counsel for the appellant Bank, on respondent no. 6's default being condoned, the suit filed by the appellant Bank was rightly restored in toto by the learned single judge which, however, was set aside in appeal. Learned senior counsel for the F appe!llant Bank further contended that in the present case, the ' - ex-pa rte decree passed by the learned single judge was of such a nature that it could not be set aside only against respondent no. Ei and hence the order of the learned single judge setting aside the decree in its entirety was fully justified. On the interG pretation/construction of the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, in particular, its proviso, the learned counsel appearing for respondent nos. 1 to 5 strongly urged that on a plain reading of this provision under Order 9 Rule t3 of the Code -r • and the proviso therein, there should not be any difficulty to come H to the conclusion that the language of Order 9 Rule 13 is very ~sANK OF INDIA v. MIS MEHTA BROTHERS 909 ,, & ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.] clear and that the said provision yvill apply only to a decree which A has been passed ex-parte and to the defendants against whom, ex-parte decree has been passed and not against the defendants who have been successful in the suit and the suit has ) been dismissed in their favour. A~cording to the learned counsel for the respondeni nos. 1 to 5, the proviso to Order 9 Rule B 13 of the Code also contemplates setting aside of an ex..:parte decree only against the defendants who were proceeded exparte but had not made an application for its setting aside. Relying on paragraph 8 of a Full Bench decision of the Assam High Court reported in Khargesh Chandra Vs. Chandra Kanta c Barua, AIR 1954 Assam 183, learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5 contended that two significant changes in the provisions under the Code of 1908 namely, the words, 'as against him' have been added after the words 'shall make an order setting aside the decree and the proviso' to the rule. According to ·~. the learned counsel for respondent nos. 1 to 5, these changes 0 left no room for doubt that as a general rule, the decree was to be set aside as against the defendant making the appli .... respondent nos. 1 to 5, in view of the liability of ~he respondent Nos. 1 to 5 and in view of the alternative reliefs claimed in ti1e suit itself, the decree was separate and, therefore, it could be split up. Therefore, the learned cou"nsel for the respondent nos. H 910 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A 1 to 5 contended that the Division Bench of the High Court was fully justified in setting aside that portion of the decree by which the suit against respondent nos. 1 to 5 was dismissed. 8. Mr. Jayant Bhushan, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent no.6 supported the contention of the learned B senior counsel appearing for the appellant Bank and contended that since the decree was indivisible and in view of the nature of the order of the trial court deciding the issues which were interlinked, the learned single judge was fully justified in setting side a decree in toto and restored the suit against all the defenC dants. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and after noting the arguments advanced by them, we are of the view that the judgment of the Division Bench of the High Court 0 which is impugned in this appeal so far as that part of the order of the Division Bench setting aside the order of the learned single judge restoring the suit in its entirety cannot be sustained in law. Now, let us interpret the provisions under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code and particularly examine the scope of the ProE viso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. In the light of the issue framed by us, as noted herein earlier, we need to ascertain whether under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, it is permissible for the court, on an application of a defendant against whom a de- . cree has been passed ex-parte, to set aside the decree also against the other defendants appearing in the same suit and F dismissed on contest. 10. At the risk of repetition, we may also examine whether the Division Bench of the High Court was justified in setting aside the judgment of the learned single judge to the extent that the G decri~e of dismissal passed in favour of respondent nos. 1 to 5 could also be set aside along with the ex parte decree being set aside against respondent no. 6 or, whether under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, the court on an application by a defendant against whom the decree has been passed exparte can set H aside the decree not only against the defendant applying for ,, BANK OF INDIA v. MIS MEHTA BROTHERS 911 & ORS. [TARUN CHATIERJEE, J.] setting aside the ex parte decree but also the decree passed in A favour of the other defendants who appeared and contested the suit. 11. Before we examine the scope and impact of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code and the proviso to it and the definition of 8 i§decreej"· made in the Code and other relevant provisions, we may look into earlier provisions made in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882. Section 108 of the 1882 Code dealt with applications for setting aside an exparte decree which read as under: c "In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against ,.. a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was made for an order to set it aside, and if he satisfies the Court that the summons were not duly served, the Court shall pass an order to set aside such decree upon D such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit and shall appoint a date for proceeding with the suit" From a plain reading of the provisions made under Section 108 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882, it is evident that E on the Court being satisfied with the merits of an application for setting aside of an ex-parte decree, it was required to set aside the decree and proceed with the suit. The words used in this ·:-"i section, namely, "the decree" "set aside the decree" and i§proceeding with the suitj"" would clearly show that in Section-108 F there was no provision to set aside an ex parte decree only against the defendant against whom the ex parte decree was ._passed and who had, accordingly, made an application for setting it aside. Therefore, it is clear from this provision that if an ex parte decree was to be set aside by the court, the same had to G be set aside in toto i.e. as against all the defendants in the suit. - 'f In our opinion, the expression "proceeding with the suit" would also clearly show that the intentions of the Legislature that the court was required to proceed with the suit, i.e. between all the plaintiffs and the defendants. However, in the interpretation of H 912 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. A Section 108 particularly "decree'', "ex parte decree" and i§proceeding with the suit(. there was a difference of opinion expressed by different High Courts in India, that is to say, as to whether the ex parte decree had to be set aside in toto, or whether the same was required to be set aside only as against B the party against whom the ex parte decree was passed. This difference of opinion of different High Courts was, however, removed by t~e introduction of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. 12. At this stage, it would be relevant to mention and reproduce the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code which C reads as under: D E F G H "13. Setting aside decree ex-parte against defendant- In any case in which a decree is passed ex-parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons were not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit: Provided that here the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be set aside as against all or any of the other clefendants also: Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex-parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim. Explanation- Where there has been an appeal against a decree passed ex-parte under this rule, and the appeal -· ,. BANK OF INDIA v. M/S MEHTA BROTHERS 913 & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.] has been disposed of on any ground other than the A ground that the appellant Bank has withdrawn t/Je appeal, . no application shall lie under this rule for setting aside that ex-parte decree.". 1-3. We have carefully examined the provisions under Or". B der 9 Rule 13 of the Code as well as its proviso and other relevant provisions under Order 9 of the Code. A reading of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code Would i::learly show that under this provision it was clarified that an ex pa rte decree was ordinarily to be set aside only against the defendant against whom the decree was ex parte and the suit was to be revived only qua the said c defendant applying for setting aside the ex parte decree. It is true that the heading of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code starts with the expression "setting aside of an ex parte decree". But if we examine this provision under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code,as well as its proviso in depth and in detail, it would not be difficult D for us to come to a conclusion that under Order 9 Rule 13, it has been clarified that an ex pa rte decree is . ordinarily to be set aside only as against the defendants against whom the decree has been ex parte and the suit is to be revived only qua the defendant who applied for setting aside the ex parte decree. E Keeping this in mind, let us now examine whether the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code gives ample power to the court to set aside the decree passed .in favour of the contesting defen~ dants at the time of setting aside the ex parte decree against ~-. other defendants. Therefore, let us now deal with the proviso to F Order 9Rule13 of the Code. It provides that in cases where the decree is of such a nature that the same cannot be set aside only as against the defendant applying for setting it aside, the . decree could also be set aside as against any or all of the other defendants. Therefore, in our view, this proviso confers power G on the court to set aside the entire decree if the court is of the - view that the decree passed was of such a nature that the same .,. could not be set aside only as against the defendant applying for setting aside the decree, the decree could also be set aside as against any or all of the other defendants. Therefore, this H 914 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. ,.. ~ A proviso clearly confers powers on the Court to set aside the entire decree where the said decree was of such a nature that it is expedient in the interest of justice to set aside the decree as against any or all of the other defendants also. After carefully examining the provision under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code B along with its proviso, the following, therefore, emerges:- 14. As noted herein earlier, the heading of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code starts with "setting aside decrees ex parte" But, if we read the entire provision under Order 9 Rule 13 of the c Code, it would be clear that the said provision provides that the decree must be ex part~ against one defendant or ex parte against all the defendants. The proviso also does not provide that the decree can be set aside against the defendants, other than the applying defendant, only if it is ex parte against them also. The only requirement for the applicability of this order is D that the decree should be ex parte against the defendant applying to have it set aside. Thus, the language of the order does not suggest that for the order to apply the decree must be entirely ex parte. Secondly, if the proviso was to apply onlyfHhe decree. was ex pa rte against the other defendants also·; that E would have rendered the proviso practically infructuous, as in such a situation, the other defendants would have an independent right to have the decree set aside against them. In our view, the idea behind the proviso is that if the decree is being set aside as, against some defendants, and the decree as against F the other defendants is connected, interlinked or dependent on . ~ that part of the decree which is being set aside, the decree may have to be set aside as against the other defendants also. There is another aspect to be considered by us relating to the provision under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code The proviso to Order 9 G Rule 13 does not use the expression "ex parte decree" but it had used the term "decree". Therefore, the question would be whether the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 says that the decree .{ would mean an ex parte decree. This can be looked at from two .,. angles. We shall consider both of t:iem and then determine H which of the two is the most appropriate. One of the ways to BANK OF INDIA v. MIS MEHTA BROTHERS 915 & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.] look at that the term "decree" over here means the ex parte A decree, which was passed against the defendant who had afterwards applied for setting it aside. This interpretation can be illustrated with the help of the following hypothetical situation. Let us assume that there are many defendants and the decree is passed ex-parte against all the defendants, defendant No.1 B . subsequently applies for setting aside the said ex-parte decree, according to the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code, if the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against the defendant No.1 only, then it would be open for the court to set aside the decree as against all or any of the other defen- c dants as well. Qf course, we are considering the decrees which have been passed ex parte against all of them at the present moment. Thus, according to this interpretation, for the court to be able to exercise power under this proviso, the word "decree" used in ,the proviso must be construed to mean ex-parte de0 cree only. The arguments which can be made in support of this interpretation may be summarized as follows: a) The heading to Order 9 Rule 13 says, "ex parte decree'', b) The expression "ex-~arte" is used under Order 9 Rule E 13 only once and then it uses the word either i§decreej"' or"it" in this context. Therefore, if we read the proviso, it should mean ex parte decree only. Therefore, according to the above-discussed interpretation, only that decree can be set aside under the proviso to QrF der 9 Rule 13 of the Code, which was passed ex-parte. There- , _ fore, a decree which is not ex-parte, that is to say, a decree ·· against persons who appeared and contested, cannot be set aside, much less persons who not only appeared but in whose .favour the suit was dismissed. This is the one look on the interG pretation of the proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code. l..et us now take up the second way to look at this proviso by interpreting that the worcj "decree" used in the proviso means a decree in general and not necessarily an ex-parte decr~e. In support ot this interpretation we may note the points emerged : H A B 916 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2008) 13 S.C.R. If the subsequent words used in the proviso were to mean ex-pa rte decree. the Legislature would have expressly provided so. Therefore, from the intention of the Legislature it cannot be said that the ex parte decree can only be set aside and not a decree passed in toto. At this juncture, we may look at the second proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code 1Nhich runs as under:- " Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex-parte merely on the ground that there has c been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff's claim. Therefore, looking at the second proviso to Order 9 Rule D 13 of the Code and also the explanation, we see that the word "decree" is preceded by the word "ex parte" This would, in our view, effectively mean that the Legislature while drafting the proviso No.1 to Order 9 Rule 13, intentionally omitted "ex parte" before the word "decree" because they intended to mean deE cree in general. ~ 5. Therefore, if we go by the above mentioned interpretation, a decree can be set aside as against all or any of the other defendants, regardless of the fact whether they appeared, contested or not. Keeping this interpretation of the first proviso to F Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code in mind, let us now take up the other question to be answered in this case, which is whether a decree can be set aside against a defendant against whom the suit has been dismissed on contest. At the first blush, we thought it fit to think that a defendant who contested a suit and got the suit disG missed on contest it would be unjust to call back the said defendant who had already contested the matter and got the suit dismisse!d. This is because, it would amount to jeopardizing his interest but it would also result in unending litigation for him.Therefore, before expressing any opinion on the issue posed H before us, we have to solve this aspect also. For this reason, we ... y - BANK OF INDIA v. MIS MEHTA BROTHERS 917 & ORS. [TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.] wish to ascertain that there cannot be a rigid answer to this probA lem. As regards the question as to whether the term "decree" in the first proviso connotes ex-pa rte decree or the decree in general, we have already come to a firm opinion, as discussed herein above, that it actually meant a decree in general. It may be kept on record that, in our view, the intention of the Legislature to use· B the word "decree" in the first proviso to mean decree in general in view of the changes in the expression made in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1882 and the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. . 16. Therefore, keeping this in mind, let us now consider whether a contested decree by some of the defendants can be C · set aside while considering the application for setting aside the ex parte decree against one of the defendants. This would, in our view, certainly depend on the nature of reliefs claimed by the plaintiff in his plaint and the nature of the decree in question. If the decree is indivisible, the court would be at liberty to set D aside the decree not only against the defendant who applied for setting aside the ex pa rte decree passed against him, but also as against all or any ohhe other defendants. In the instant case at our disposal, the Division Bench of the High Court had set aside that part of the order of the learned single judge by E which the learned single judge had set aside the order of dismissal 'of the suit as against the respondent Nos. 1 to 5 on the application under Order 9 Rule 13 only by the respondent No. 6 for setting aside its ex-parte decree, on the ground that the decree passed was divisible. Therefore, the question remain§ to F be considered as to whether the decree passed in the suit filed by the appellant Bank is indivisible or not. To answer this query, it would be necessary for us to look into the issues framed in the suit and the reliefs claimed in so far as it is relevant, but before doing that we may note that the suit was filed by the apG pellant Bank seeking a decree against respondent no. 6 and -in the alternative, as against respondent nos. 1 to 5 if the respondent no. 6 was found not to be liable. The issues which were framed in the suit in so far as it is relevant for the disposal of this appeal, may be set down below: H 918 A B c D E SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2008] 13 S.C.R. 1) Whether the defendant no. 6 did not comply with the terms and conditions of the letter of credit and if it acted in breach of its terms in claiming reimbursement of the amount of $6 107 401- from the appellant Bank branch in New York. 2) Did the defendant nos. 1 to 5 wrongly fail to retire the documents? If so, to what effect? 3) 4) 5) 6) 7) Whether the claim of the plaintiff lies in the alternative, i.e., one against defendant no. 6 and in the alternative against defendants no. 1 to 5? 8) In case it is held that defendants no. 1 to 5 are.liable to any amount are they entitled to pay that amount in installments? 17. We have already quoted the relevant reliefs claimed by the appellant Bank in their plaint and the issues now quoted herein above. As has been noted herein earlier, the suit was decreed ex parte holding that respondent no. 6 only was liable and in view of such issue being decided, the suit against reF spondent Nos. 1 to 5 was dismissed. Such dismissal of the suit, as noted herein earlier, as against respondent Nos. 1 to 5 was held by the Court that since respondent No.6 alone was liable to pay the decretal amount to the appellant Bank the suit had to b~ dismissed against respondent Nos. 1 to 5 as the G relief claimed in the suit was in the alternative, that is to say, if the suit is decreed against respondent No.6 only or it is held by the cour1 that respondent No. 6 only was liable to pay the decretal amount, respondent Nos. 1 to 5 cannot be held to be liable for the amount claimed.