Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Vinay Ganesh Prabhu Dessai, was the original defendant in a suit filed by the Government of Goa and others seeking a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction in respect of certain property. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 30/04/2012 as the defendant failed to appear despite service. The defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to set aside the ex-parte decree, which was rejected by the trial court on 30/11/2012. Aggrieved, the defendant filed the present Civil Revision Application under Section 115 CPC. The High Court examined the trial court's order and found that the defendant had been served and had engaged a lawyer who filed a power of attorney but subsequently failed to appear. The trial court noted that the defendant did not provide any explanation for the non-appearance. The High Court held that the trial court's discretion in rejecting the application was not improper and that the revisional court could not interfere unless the order was perverse or suffered from a jurisdictional error. The revision was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Ex-parte Decree - Setting Aside - Order 9 Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Sufficient Cause - The petitioner-defendant sought to set aside an ex-parte decree passed in a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction. The trial court rejected the application holding that the defendant failed to show sufficient cause for his non-appearance. The High Court, in revisional jurisdiction, found no illegality or material irregularity in the impugned order and dismissed the revision. Held that the trial court's discretion was properly exercised and the revisional court cannot interfere unless the order is perverse or suffers from jurisdictional error (Paras 1-10).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the trial court was justified in rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree on the ground that the defendant failed to show sufficient cause for his non-appearance.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the Civil Revision Application, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 9 Rule 13 CPC
- Sufficient cause for setting aside ex-parte decree
- Scope of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC
