The Jammu & Kashmir High Court ruled that the death of a respondent who had been proceeded against ex parte does not, by itself, nullify a judgment or entitle the losing petitioner to have it recalled. Where a statutory appeal remedy exists, the court held that recalling the judgment is not permissible merely because the respondent died before the matter concluded. The proper course is to pursue the available appellate remedy, not to invoke the court's inherent power to recall.

This ruling engages two important procedural principles tested regularly in CLAT PG: the doctrine of ex parte proceedings and the limits of a court's inherent power to recall its own judgments.

An ex parte order or judgment is one passed in the absence of a party — typically the respondent — who was duly served but chose not to appear. The death of such a respondent, while procedurally significant, does not automatically render the judgment a nullity. A judgment becomes a nullity only when the court lacked inherent jurisdiction, not merely because a party died during or after proceedings.

The second and more important principle concerns the recall of judgments. Indian courts exercise inherent power (under Section 482 CrPC / Section 528 BNSS or the civil court equivalent) to prevent abuse of process or to correct jurisdictional errors. However, this power is not a substitute for a statutory appeal. Where an appeal lies — whether under CrPC, CPC, or a special statute — the party must exhaust that remedy. Courts have consistently refused to use recall jurisdiction as a parallel appellate channel.

For CLAT PG, the examiner typically frames a passage on inherent powers or ex parte decrees and then tests whether the aspirant can identify the correct remedy. The key distinction is: inherent power corrects jurisdictional voids; it does not reopen a case where an appeal was available but not pursued. The J&K HC ruling reinforces this principle with the added twist of a deceased respondent, making it a richer hypothetical for passage-based MCQs.