Understanding the Legal Provision: ‘No Decree to Be Set Aside Without Notice to the Opposite Party’ under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Contentious legal issues often require a deep understanding of specific provisions. In this article, we at SimranLaw, aim to dissect the provision, ‘No Decree to Be Set Aside Without Notice to the Opposite Party,’ which falls under Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Dissecting the Provisions: Section 114 and Order 47 Rule 1, CPC

1. Section 114: This section embodies a principle of natural justice that nobody should be condemned unheard. It provides the aggrieved party with a statutory right to file a review application against any decree or order.

   • An aggrieved person can seek a review of the judgment passed by the court only on the grounds of discovery of new and important matters or evidence which, after the exercise of due diligence, were not within his knowledge or could not be produced by him at the time when the decree was passed or order made.
   • Additionally, it could also be on account of some mistake or error apparent on the face of the record or for any other sufficient reason.

2. Order 47 Rule 1: This order supplements Section 114 and provides for a detailed procedure. The party seeking a review is required to apply to the court which passed the decree or made the order.

Interpretation of ‘Without Notice to the Opposite Party’

This clause adheres to principles of natural justice and ensures fairness. Essentially, it implies the necessity of informing or notifying the other party involved in litigation before the court makes any decision to set aside any established decree.

Relevant Case Laws

1. S. Shanmugam Pillai vs K. Shanmugam Pillai: This case emphasized that to allow a review, discovery of new and important matter or evidence should be persuasively demonstrated. Also, the proof that the evidence was not within their knowledge or they couldn’t have availed it with due diligence must be shown.

2. M/s Pannalal Silk Mills (P) Ltd. vs M/s Standard Vacuum Oil Co.: In this case, the Supreme Court pointed out that a review is by no means an appeal in disguise whereby an erroneous decision is reheard and corrected, but lies only for patent error.

3. Lily Thomas vs Union of India: Here, the Supreme Court held that an error which is not self-evident and has to be detected by a process of reasoning can be corrected by appeal but not by review.

In conclusion, this provision helps maintain balance in legal proceedings by ensuring that all parties involved are well informed and heard, thereby ensuring justice.

This article has been put together by our team of legal experts at SimranLaw who carry years of experience in demystifying complex legal issues. It’s our goal to provide our readers with the insights we’ve gained over the years.