Ex parte (Latin: "from one side") refers to a judicial proceeding, order, or decree made at the instance of one party without the other party being present or having been given an opportunity to be heard. Under Indian law, ex parte proceedings in civil suits are governed by Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which prescribes the conditions under which a court may proceed ex parte when a defendant fails to appear, and the remedies available to set aside ex parte decrees.
Legal definition
Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides the framework for ex parte proceedings:
Order IX Rule 6(1)(a): Where the plaintiff appears and the defendant does not appear when the suit is called on for hearing, then — if it is proved that the summons was duly served, the Court may make an order that the suit shall be heard ex parte.
Order IX Rule 13 — Setting aside decree ex parte: 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 was 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.
The term "ex parte" is used more broadly in Indian legal practice to refer to any order or proceeding conducted in the absence of the other party, including ex parte injunctions under Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC.
How courts have interpreted this term
Bhanu Kumar Jain v. Archana Kumar [(2005) 1 SCC 787]
The Supreme Court held that when a defendant applies to set aside an ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13, the court must consider whether the defendant had sufficient cause for non-appearance. The standard is not stringent — even a reasonable explanation for absence, coupled with a demonstration that the defendant has a meritorious defence on the merits, may be sufficient. The Court emphasised that the judicial system favours decisions on merits over decisions by default.
Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal [AIR 1955 SC 425]
The Supreme Court laid down the foundational principle that the right of a party to be heard before an adverse order is passed is a fundamental principle of natural justice. While ex parte proceedings are a necessary procedural tool, they are an exception to the rule that both parties must be heard (audi alteram partem). Courts must ensure that the defendant had proper notice before proceeding ex parte.
Why this matters
Ex parte proceedings represent a necessary compromise between two competing principles: the right of the plaintiff to have their suit heard without indefinite delay, and the right of the defendant to be heard before an adverse order is passed. The CPC resolves this tension by allowing ex parte proceedings only when the defendant has been duly served with summons and fails to appear, and by providing robust mechanisms to set aside ex parte decrees.
For practitioners, the implications of an ex parte decree are significant. An ex parte decree has the same force and effect as a decree passed after full hearing — it is executable, enforceable, and can be the basis for execution proceedings. However, the defendant has multiple remedies: an application under Order IX Rule 13 to set aside the decree, a first appeal under Section 96(2) CPC, or in certain circumstances, a review petition. The limitation period for an application under Rule 13 is 30 days from the date of the decree.
A common tactical issue is the choice between applying to set aside an ex parte decree under Rule 13 and filing a regular appeal under Section 96(2). The advantage of Rule 13 is that it restores the suit to its original position, allowing the defendant to contest on merits from the beginning. The advantage of appeal is that it does not require explaining the absence from the trial court.
Related terms
Related concepts:
Related procedural concepts:
Frequently asked questions
Can an ex parte decree be appealed?
Yes. Section 96(2) CPC expressly provides that an appeal may lie from an original decree passed ex parte. The defendant can file a first appeal without applying to set aside the ex parte decree. Both remedies — setting aside under Order IX Rule 13 and appeal under Section 96(2) — can be pursued simultaneously.
What is the limitation period to set aside an ex parte decree?
The limitation period for filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 to set aside an ex parte decree is 30 days from the date of the decree, under Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963.
What is the difference between ex parte decree and default judgment?
In Indian legal terminology, these terms are often used interchangeably. An ex parte decree is passed when the defendant does not appear after being served with summons. The court hears the plaintiff's case alone and passes a decree based on the evidence presented by the plaintiff. There is no separate concept of "default judgment" as understood in common law jurisdictions — the CPC uses the term "ex parte" to describe this situation.
This entry is part of the Veritect Indian Legal Glossary, a comprehensive reference of Indian legal terminology grounded in statutory text and judicial interpretation.
Last updated: 2026-03-27. Veritect provides this content for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice.