Case Note & Summary
The Petitioner, Shamrao Piraji Kadam, filed a Writ Petition challenging the Judgment and Order dated 20.07.2021 passed by the learned District Judge-6, Sangli in Misc. Civil Application No. 213 of 2017. The Petitioner had filed an application seeking condonation of delay of 30 months and 14 days in filing a substantive First Appeal before the learned Appellate Court. The exparte judgment and decree in Special Civil Suit No. 188 of 2013 was passed on 05.03.2015. The Petitioner filed the First Appeal on 21.09.2017, along with the condonation application, alleging that a fraud was committed on him and he came to know about the exparte decree immediately before filing the appeal. The relevant facts are that on 22.11.2013, Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 (Plaintiffs) filed a suit for specific performance of a contract dated 14.08.2013 against the Petitioner (Defendant No. 1). The suit was decreed exparte on 05.03.2015. The Petitioner claimed that he was not aware of the suit proceedings and that the Respondents played a fraud. The learned District Judge rejected the condonation application, holding that the Petitioner failed to show sufficient cause for the delay. The High Court, after hearing both sides, found that the Petitioner did not provide a satisfactory explanation for the inordinate delay of 30 months and 14 days. The Court noted that the Petitioner could have filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the exparte decree, but did not do so. The allegation of fraud was not substantiated with sufficient evidence. The Court held that the District Judge's order was just and proper and dismissed the Writ Petition.
Headnote
A) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5 - Sufficient Cause - The Petitioner sought condonation of delay of 30 months and 14 days in filing First Appeal against exparte decree, alleging fraud. The Court held that the Petitioner failed to explain the delay satisfactorily and the allegation of fraud was not substantiated. The District Judge's order rejecting condonation was upheld. (Paras 1-10) B) Civil Procedure Code - Exparte Decree - Setting Aside - Order 9 Rule 13 - The Petitioner could have filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the exparte decree instead of filing a First Appeal with a huge delay. The Court noted that the Petitioner did not pursue that remedy. (Paras 3-8)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the learned District Judge erred in rejecting the application for condonation of delay of 30 months and 14 days in filing the First Appeal against the exparte decree.
Final Decision
The Writ Petition is dismissed. The order of the learned District Judge-6, Sangli dated 20.07.2021 rejecting the condonation of delay is upheld.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Limitation Act
- Section 5
- Exparte decree
- Fraud
