Ex-Parte Order Without Notice Constitutes Gross Abuse of Process

19-Jun-2026

Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (CPC)

"This Court is of considered opinion that order impugned amounts to a gross abuse of process of law."

Justice Sanjeet Purohit

Source: Rajasthan High Court

Why in News?

A Single Bench of Justice Sanjeet Purohit of the Rajasthan High Court, in the case of Virendra Singh v. Bhupendra Singh Ranawat (2026), quashed an order passed by the Board of Revenue (BoR) for having been issued without notice to the parties concerned and in excess of jurisdiction. The Court held that such conduct amounted to a gross abuse of the process of law and remanded the matter for fresh adjudication.

What was the Background of Virendra Singh v. Bhupendra Singh Ranawat (2026) Case?

The petitioner, Virendra Singh, had filed a suit for declaration of khatedari rights and permanent injunction before the Additional Collector, Jayal.
A respondent, who was not originally a party to the suit, filed a revision petition before the Board of Revenue against proceedings in which he had no formal standing.
The Board of Revenue, without issuing notice to the original parties and without deciding a pending application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, passed an order on the very day of admission of the revision petition.
The Board directed the trial court to implead the respondent, despite the respondent never having filed any application for impleadment before the court of first instance.
Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the Rajasthan High Court challenging the order dated 20.04.2026 passed by the Board of Revenue.

What were the Court's Observations?

On violation of natural justice: The Court held that the Board of Revenue acted in complete disregard of the audi alteram partem principle by passing the order without notice to the original parties.
On jurisdictional excess: The Court observed that the Board, by directing the trial court to implead a party who had not even filed an impleadment application, exceeded the scope of its supervisory authority and travelled beyond the prayer made in the revision petition.

On the conduct of the Board: The Court remarked that the manner in which the impugned order was passed was against settled and basic tenets of law, and termed the order a gross abuse of process of law that was violative of judicial propriety.

On administrative accountability: The Court directed the Chairman of the Board of Revenue to reassign the matter to a different Bench, to ensure the proceedings continue free from the shadow of the earlier errors.

What is an Ex-Parte Order?

About:

An ex parte order is a temporary or final legal judgment made by a court based on the arguments of only one party, without notifying or requiring the presence of the other party. Derived from Latin, it essentially translates to "from one party"

Order IX Rule 13 CPC - Setting Aside Decree Ex Parte Against Defendant:

A defendant against whom an ex parte decree has been passed may apply to the court which passed the decree to set it aside.
The defendant must satisfy the court on either of two grounds: that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing at the hearing.

If satisfied, the court shall set aside the decree upon such terms as to costs, payment into court, or otherwise as it thinks fit.

Upon setting aside the decree, the court shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit.

Where the decree cannot be set aside against the applying defendant only, it may be set aside against all or any other defendants also.

No court shall set aside an ex parte decree merely on the ground of irregularity in service of summons, if the defendant had notice of the hearing date and sufficient time to appear.

Where an appeal against an ex parte decree has been disposed of on any ground other than withdrawal, no application shall lie under this rule for setting aside that decree.

The rule confers discretionary power upon the court to balance the interests of justice whilst preventing abuse of process.