Proceedings brought by one person in absence of another.
In a normal case of court proceedings, both the parties’ i.e. Plaintiff and the defendant should be present. Sometimes it happens that one of the party is absent in the court proceedings despite of being provided an opportunity. In such cases despite the absence of on party the proceedings are conducted, as the party who is absent was given a fair chance to represent his/her side of the case.
Explanation: When one of the principal parties to the litigation is absent from the proceedings, such kind of proceedings are said to be Ex Prate Proceedings. The orders and decrees which are provided by the court in such circumstances are also referred to as ex parte. Ex Parte Relief is typically granted in the cases where following the traditional requirement that affected parties be given notice and an opportunity to appear would cause some kind grave loss or loss which is irreparable.
Indian Law Position:
The honorable Supreme Court of India in the case of Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. V. Nirmala Devi & Ors. Provided detailed guidelines for granting Ex Parte orders.
Following are the remedies against an ex parte order passed by court:
- Under the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, where a decree or an order is passed ex parte against the defendant, he/she has an option to apply in the court to set aside the decree or order. In such kind of situation, if the defendant is able to satisfies the honorable Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appear for the hearing, The Court shall make an order setting aside the decree against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit, and shall appoint any future day for proceeding with the suit.
- Another which is available in such cases is that an appeal can be filed by the defendant under the provisions of Section 96(2) of the Civil Procedure Code.
- If at all no such kind of appeal is available against such kind of decree then, the other option available is that under the section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code a revision can be filed against the ex parte decree. iv) Option of reviewing the ex parte decree is also available under section 47 Rule 1 of the Civil Procedure Code. 
‘A’ accused ‘B’ of stealing his watch. The Court asked both of them to present their side in the court on 12 May 2019. However, ‘B’ failed to appear in court; as a result of this the court conducted an Ex Parte Proceedings and ruled in favor of ‘A’.
Grindlays Bank Ltd v. Central Government Industrial
It was provided by the honorable Supreme Court that “Where a party is prevented from appearing at the hearing due to a sufficient cause and is faced with an ex parte award, it is as if the party is visited with an award without a notice of the proceedings. Where the Tribunal proceeds to make an award without notice to a party, the award is nothing but a nullity. In such circumstances, the Tribunal has not only the power but also the duty to set aside the ex parte award and to direct the matter to be heard afresh”.
Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das
In the above mentioned case exceptional circumstance were provided by the honorable Supreme Court, only under which ex parte injunction should be granted.
M/S Pawan Kumar Pramod Kumar v. Delhi Development Authority
In this case also an Ex Parte judgment was passed in favor of the plaintiff. However, thereafter while allowing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the ex-parte judgment and decree was set aside vide order.
Edited by Vigneshwar Ramasubramania
Approved & Published – Sakshi Raje
 Ramrameshwari Devi & Ors. v. Nirmala Devi & Ors., (2011) 8 SCC 249.
 What are the remedies against an ex parte decree?, TILAK MARG(16thMay,2019), https://tilakmarg.com/answers/what-are-the-remedies-against-an-ex-parte-decree/
 Grindlays Bank Ltd v. Central Government Industrial, 1981 AIR 606.
 Morgan Stanley Mutual Fund v. Kartick Das, 1994 SCC (4) 225.
 M/S Pawan Kumar Pramod Kumar v. Delhi Development Authority, Civil Apple No 1317B/2006.