Judgement JUDGMENT:- These 3 Second Appeals have arisen out of the common judgment and decree dt. 29-6-1978 passed by the Assistant District Judge, Jorhat in 3 Title Appeals Nos. 28/1976, 29/ 1976 and 7/1977 dismissing the appeals and affirming the judgments and decrees passed by the Munsiff, Sibsagar in Title Suits Nos. 28, 29 and 30 of 1974 dismissing the suits. 2. The respondent as plaintiff instituted 3 Money Suits Nos. 45, 46 and 50 of 1969 in the Court of Munsiff, Sibsagar against the Union of India (Railway - North East Frointer Railway and Eastern Railways) for recovery of compensation on account of loss sustained due to short delivery/damage of the 3 consignments. The Appellant M/s. J Thomas and Co. (P) Ltd. was made a pro forma defendant in all the three Money Suits. The allegation in all the three Money Suits was that the loss was due to gross negligence and misconduct of the servants, agents and employees of the Railway administration concerned and the relief was claimed specifically against the main defendant Union of India in all the three suits. It was stated in para 8 of the plaint in all the three Money Suits that the pro forma defendant M/s. S.J. Thomas and Co. had been impleaded in the suits with a view that the suits be decided in their presence; and that no relief was sought against them; and that in case the said pro forma defendant would contest the suit they should be treated as main defendant and the decree may be passed against them also. The pro forma defendant M/s. S.J. Thomas and Co. remained absent and did not contest the suits. Finally, the Munsiff dismissed those three Money Suits against the Union of India- main defendant, but decreed the suits ex parte against the pro forma defendant M/s. S.J. Thomas and Co. 3. M/s. S.J. Thomas and Co. (P) Ltd, instituted three Title Suits Nos. 28, 29 and 30 of 1974 in the Court of Munsiff, Sibsagar against M/ s. The Ahmed Tea Co. (P) Ltd. for declaration that the ex parte decrees obtained by Ms. The Ahmed Tea Co. in the three Money Suits Nos. 45, 46 and 50 of 1969 were nullity and not binding on M/s. S.J. Thomas and Co. and also for permanent injunction against M/s. The Ahmed Tea Co. (P) Ltd. for declaration that the ex parte decrees obtained by Ms. The Ahmed Tea Co. in the three Money Suits Nos. 45, 46 and 50 of 1969 were nullity and not binding on M/s. S.J. Thomas and Co. and also for permanent injunction against M/s. The Ahmed Tea Co. restraining them to execute those three ex parte decrees on M/s. S.J. Thomas and Co. The defendant M/s. The Ahmed Tea Co. contested these 3 Title Suits. The Munsiff dismissed all the 3 Title Suits on the grounds :- (1) that summonses were duly served on M/s. S.J. Thomas and Co. in the 3 Money Suits and that they failed to file written statements in their defence; (2) that steps ought to have been taken under O.9, R. 13, C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree or by filling appeal and not by a suit when apparently there was no fraud on the part of the defendant (M/s. The Ahmed Tea Co.). Being aggrieved with the judgments of dismissal of the 3 Title Suits, M/s. S.J.Thomas and Co. preferred 3 Title Appeals Nos. 28 and 29 of 1976 and 7 of 1977 before the Court of Asstt. District Judge, Jorhat. The appellate Court by its common judgment dt. 29-6-1978 dismissed the appeals and affirmed the judgments of the trial Court by holding that in the absence of fraud on the part of the plaintiff-decree holder, the decrees in the Money Suits stood valid and that the Title Suits (3) for declaring those decrees void were not maintainable. Hence, these three (3) Second Appeals. 4. The only substantial questions of law for decision is whether the courts below committed error in holding that the suits filed by M/s. S.J. Thomas and Co. for declaring the three decrees of the Money Suits as nullity and not binding on them was not maintainable in absence of proof of fraud on the part of the M/s. The Ahmed Tea Co. (Plaintiff of Money Suits). 5. The admitted position is that M/s. S.J.Thomas and Co. was made a pro forma defendant in these 3 Money Suits and it was specifically stated in the plaint of those suits that no relief was claimed against this pro forma defendant and that in case the pro forma defendant contest the suit they should be treated as main defendant and decree may be passed against them also. was made a pro forma defendant in these 3 Money Suits and it was specifically stated in the plaint of those suits that no relief was claimed against this pro forma defendant and that in case the pro forma defendant contest the suit they should be treated as main defendant and decree may be passed against them also. The pro forma defendant M/s. S.J.Thomas and Co. had remained absent in spite of service of notice and did not contest the 3 Money Suits. It was clear that M/s. S.J. Thomas and Co. had not been impleaded as a defendant in the 3 Money Suits within the meaning of O. 1, R.3 and O. 7, R. 5 of the C.P.C., inasmuch as it had been specifically averred that no relief was sought against M/s. S.J. Thomas and Co. They had right to refrain from contest in pursuance of the averment in the plaint also they would have been treated as a defendant. A decree cannot be passed against a party if he is not made a defendant within the meaning of O.1, R. 3 and O. 7, R. 5, C. P.C. claiming specific relief against him. In the absence of evidence in the 3 Money Suits against the main defendant- Union of India the suits ought to have been dismissed as a whole as no relief had been claimed against any of the pro forma defendants. If on the other hand, there was evidence to find the pro forma defendant liable against whom no relief was claimed, it was the duty of the Court to notice them again specifically informing that although no relief was originally claimed against them but on the face of evidence they were required to answer in the suit or the plaintiff could also amend the plaint asking relief against the proforma defendants and noticed them with Courts order. This was not done by the trial Court nor plaintiff took action as required in those 3 money suits. The proforma defendant M/s. J. Thomas was deprived of natural justice and the ex parte decree was passed against them although no relief was claimed against them and without affording opportunity to answer to the evidence led against them in those suits. In such a case, practising fraud by the plaintiff (decree holder) of the suits need not be alleged or proved. In such a case, practising fraud by the plaintiff (decree holder) of the suits need not be alleged or proved. A decree passed against a party not being a defendant and no relief claimed against him is a nullity in law. A suit by a party, against whom such decrees have been passed, for declaring such decree as nullity and not binding on him is maintainable under the law. The Courts below had committed error in holding that the Title Suits were not maintainable. The Judgments of both the Courts below are liable to be set aside. 6. In the result, these 3 appeals were allowed. The judgment/ decree dt. 29-6-1979 of the Asstt. District Judge, Jorhat in Title Appeal Nos. 28/76, 29/76 and 7/1977 and also the judgment/decree in Title Suits Nos. 28/1974, 29/1974 and 30/1974 of the Court of Munsiff, Sibsagar are hereby set aside. They 3 Title Suits Nos. 28/74, 29/4 and 30/1974 are decreed with the declaration that the ex parte decree in the 3 Money Suits Nos. 45, 46 and 50 of 1969 of the Court of Munsiff, Sibsagar are nullity and not binding on M/s. J. Thomas and Co., and perpetual injunction issued on M/s. The Ahmed Tea Co. restraining from executing the nullity decrees against M/s. J. Thomas and Co. 7. The appellant M/ s. J. Thomas and Co. is entitled to costs all through. Appeal allowed.