Lawyer's Mistake Should Not Affect Litigant, Courts Must Be Lenient While Setting Aside Ex-Parte Decrees: Madras High Court

The bench of Justice SM Subramaniam and Justice Mohammed Shaffiq added that the courts should normally take a lenient view while setting aside ex parte decrees. The court added that ex parte decrees must be awarded only in exceptional cases where the conduct of the party is totally indifferent.

“The mistake or error committed by a lawyer need not affect the interest of the litigants or the merits involved in the case. This exactly is the reason why the Courts normally take a lenient view while setting aside the ex parte decree passed. However, the intention of the parties allowing the Court to pass an ex-parte decree are also to be taken into consideration. Only in exceptional cases where the conduct of the parties is totally indifferent, ex parte decrees are normally passed,” the court said.

The court was hearing an appeal filed by a YouTuber, Joe Micheal Praveen, against the order of a judge refusing to set aside an order directing him to pay Rs. 50 Lakh as compensation to Apsara Reddy, AIADMK sportsperson, for making derogatory statements against the latter.

Reddy had moved the suit claiming damages to the tune of Rs 1.25 crore, stating that Praveen had made videos defaming her social activities, which caused her mental agony and depression. Upon perusing the defamatory statements and videos, the judge was convinced that they were nothing but malicious and defamatory, touching upon the privacy of the individuals. The court had thus observed that some compensation had to be made. Praveen was set ex parte in the above suit.

Though he filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree, it was dismissed by the court against which the present appeal was filed.

Praveen submitted that there was no intentional non-appearance on his part. He submitted that he had engaged a counsel who was representing the case periodically. However, on the particular date, the counsel failed to appear before the trial court which resulted in passing of ex parte decree. He thus submitted that the trial court should have considered his application to set aside the ex parte decree by providing him an opportunity to defend the case on merits.

Reddy, on the other hand, opposed the plea and submitted that both Praveen and his counsel had failed to appear before the court on more than one occasion and the trial court jad rightly passed the ex parte order. It was also submitted that Praveen had filed a false affidavit in the application for setting aside the ex parte order, claiming that he had not received a summons and since the court found this statement to be incorrect, it was dismissed.

Praveen admitted that the statement in the affidavit was incorrect, but it was not made intentionally and was made as per the legal advice of his lawyer. The court noted that Praveen could not be penalised for the wrong pleadings made in the affidavit regarding service of summons in the suit.

The court was inclined to allow the appeal after Praveen submitted that if given another opportunity, he would not seek any unnecessary adjournments or make any attempt to prolong or protract the suit proceedings.

The court thus allowed the appeal and set aside the order rejecting the application for seeting aside the ex parte order.

Counsel for Petitioner: Mr. S. Kalyana Raman For Mr. R. S. Mangala Kumar

Counsel for Respondents: Mr. V. S. Senthil Kumar

Case Title: Joe Micheal Praveen v. Apsara Reddy and Another

Citation: 2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 366

Case No: OSA No. 323 of 2025