Madras High Court Restores Defamation Suit: Sets Aside Ex-Parte Decree

Court Emphasizes Lawyer's Mistake Should Not Prejudice Litigant's Rights; Orders Expedited Trial

In a significant ruling, the Madras High Court has set aside an ex-parte decree passed against Joe Micheal Praveen, the appellant in a civil suit filed by Apsara Reddy, which sought damages for alleged defamatory content circulated on social media platforms including YouTube. The Division Bench, comprising Justices S. M. Subramaniam and Mohammed Shaffiq, emphasized the principle that errors or non-appearances by a legal counsel should not adversely impact the rights of the litigants.

The case arose when Joe Micheal Praveen was set ex-parte due to his counsel’s absence, leading to an ex-parte decree on January 4, 2024. Praveen's application to set aside this decree was initially dismissed by the Trial Court, which cited a contradictory affidavit and past conduct as reasons. The High Court, however, took a lenient view considering the exceptional circumstances, notably the lack of intentional non-appearance by the appellant and the mistake of his lawyer.

The High Court observed that while the appellant did engage a counsel, the latter's repeated non-appearances were the cause of the ex-parte decree. Furthermore, the appellant admitted that the incorrect statement in the affidavit regarding summons service was made based on legal advice, not with any intent to deceive.

The Court highlighted the importance of verifying service of summons from court records and stressed that the justice system should protect litigants from the repercussions of their counsel’s errors. It recognized that while ex-parte decrees are necessary in cases of deliberate indifference, leniency is warranted when the litigant's rights are jeopardized through no fault of their own.

Consequently, the High Court restored the suit and directed the Trial Court to expedite the proceedings, underscoring the appellant's commitment to cooperate fully without seeking unnecessary adjournments. The Court refrained from imposing a strict timeline for the trial's completion, acknowledging the procedural discretion of the Trial Court.

This judgment reinforces the judiciary's role in ensuring fair play and justice, particularly in protecting litigants from the inadvertent mistakes of their legal representatives.

Bottom Line:

Original Side Appeal filed against dismissal of application to set aside ex-parte decree - Appellant claimed damages for defamatory content uploaded on YouTube/Social media - Appellant engaged lawyer but was set ex-parte due to non-appearance of counsel - Trial Court dismissed application citing contradictory affidavit and conduct - High Court set aside dismissal, restored suit considering circumstances, and directed expedited disposal.

Statutory provision(s): Civil Procedure Code, 1908 Order IX Rule 13

Joe Micheal Praveen v. Apsara Reddy, (Madras)(DB) : Law Finder Doc Id # 2796861