Case Note & Summary
The Civil Revision Application was filed by Shri Bhimrao Pundalik Bhalerao (applicant) challenging the order dated 3rd December 2001 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Amalner, in Misc. Application No. 3 of 1999. The respondent, United Western Bank Ltd. (now IDBI Bank), had filed Civil Suit No. 2 of 1997 against the applicant for recovery of Rs. 30,983/-. The applicant appeared in the suit but could not file a written statement. When the case was fixed for final hearing, the applicant's counsel was absent because he had to appear before the Court of Civil Judge Junior Division, Chopda. Consequently, the suit proceeded ex-parte and a decree was passed against the applicant. The applicant filed Misc. Application No. 3 of 1999 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to set aside the ex-parte decree. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant failed to prove sufficient cause for his counsel's absence. The applicant then filed the present Civil Revision Application. The High Court considered the submissions of both parties. The applicant's counsel argued that the absence was due to the counsel's engagement in another court, which constitutes sufficient cause. The respondent's counsel opposed the application. The High Court held that the trial court took a hypertechnical view and failed to appreciate that the applicant had appeared in the suit and was diligent. The court observed that procedural laws should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice. The absence of the counsel due to engagement in another court is a sufficient cause for non-appearance. The court set aside the impugned order and the ex-parte decree, and restored the suit to its original file. The trial court was directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of the order. The Civil Revision Application was allowed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Restoration of Suit - Order 9 Rule 13 CPC - Sufficient Cause - The applicant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex-parte decree passed in a recovery suit. The trial court dismissed the application holding that the applicant failed to prove sufficient cause. The High Court held that the absence of the counsel due to his engagement in another court constitutes sufficient cause, and the applicant cannot be penalized for the counsel's absence. The court emphasized that procedural laws should be liberally construed to advance substantial justice. (Paras 2-6) B) Civil Procedure - Ex-parte Decree - Setting Aside - Order 9 Rule 13 CPC - Liberal Interpretation - The High Court observed that the trial court took a hypertechnical view and failed to consider that the applicant had appeared in the suit and was diligent. The court set aside the ex-parte decree and restored the suit to its original file, directing the trial court to dispose of the suit expeditiously. (Paras 5-7)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the absence of the applicant's counsel due to his engagement in another court constitutes sufficient cause for setting aside an ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The Civil Revision Application is allowed. The impugned order dated 3rd December 2001 passed by the Civil Judge Senior Division, Amalner, in Misc. Application No. 3 of 1999 is quashed and set aside. The ex-parte decree passed in Civil Suit No. 2 of 1997 is set aside. The suit is restored to its original file. The trial court is directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously, preferably within six months from the date of the order. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Order 9 Rule 13 CPC
- Sufficient cause for non-appearance
- Liberal construction of procedural law
- Restoration of suit
- Counsel's absence due to engagement in another court
