Court Says Medical Records Must Show Serious Incapacity; Rejects Plea to Recall ₹75,000 Recovery Judgment
JAMMU, July 9 : A Jammu court has ruled that mere production of Outpatient Department (OPD) medical prescriptions cannot by itself establish that a litigant was incapable of pursuing court proceedings, while dismissing an application seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree in a ₹75,000 recovery suit.
The order was passed by the Court of the 2nd Additional District Judge, Jammu, presided over by Anoop Kumar Sharma, while rejecting an application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) seeking recall of an ex-parte judgment and decree dated January 22, 2025.
The applicant, proprietor of Celebrations The Banquet in Jammu, submitted that after engaging legal counsel in the matter, he developed a neck-related ailment and was advised complete bed rest, which prevented him from monitoring the progress of the case. To support his claim, he placed on record photocopies of medical prescriptions issued during OPD consultations.
However, the court found the explanation insufficient, observing that the medical documents only indicated that the applicant had visited a doctor in the OPD and had been prescribed treatment. The court held that the records did not demonstrate any serious medical condition requiring hospitalization or prove that the applicant was physically incapacitated from pursuing the litigation.
The court observed that the medical evidence failed to establish any compelling reason for the applicant’s prolonged absence from the proceedings. It noted that no material had been placed before the court to show that the ailment was of such a grave nature as to prevent him from attending court or instructing his counsel.
The case originated from a civil recovery suit filed by Rohit Chopra, who alleged that he had paid an advance amount of ₹75,000 for booking the banquet hall for a family function. According to the plaintiff, the event was cancelled due to the COVID-19 lockdown, but despite repeated requests, the advance amount was not refunded, compelling him to approach the court.
The court further noted that the defendant had initially entered appearance through counsel on December 17, 2022. However, neither the defendant nor his advocate appeared during subsequent hearings, leading the court to initiate ex-parte proceedings in November 2023. The suit was eventually decreed ex-parte on January 22, 2025.
The judgment also pointed out that although the defendant had nearly two years to contest the claim, he failed to pursue the matter diligently. It observed that his statutory right to file a written statement had already been forfeited after the prescribed period under the CPC expired without any filing.
Holding that no “sufficient cause” had been established to justify the prolonged non-appearance, the court dismissed the application. It observed that while courts generally prefer to decide disputes on their merits, such discretion cannot be exercised in favour of a party that remains negligent and fails to provide a satisfactory explanation for its absence.
The ruling reinforces the principle that litigants must exercise due diligence in pursuing their cases and that routine OPD prescriptions, without evidence of serious incapacity, cannot be relied upon to seek recall of ex-parte judgments. (KNC)
