Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by the original plaintiffs challenging the order of the lower appellate court dated 07.11.2015, which condoned a delay of 959 days in filing Misc. Civil Appeal No. 260 of 2015. The appeal was filed by the defendant against an ex-parte decree passed by the trial court granting declaration of title and possession of the suit property in favor of the plaintiffs. The defendant claimed that he was not served in the suit and that the decree was ex-parte. The lower appellate court, after examining the rojnama (daily proceedings), found that the defendant had filed a pursis (Exh.8) admitting the claim but thereafter remained absent, and the trial court proceeded without a written statement. The court noted that no registered address of the defendant was on record as required under Order VI Rule 14A CPC. The lower appellate court held that the delay was sufficiently explained and condoned it. The plaintiffs challenged this order in the High Court, arguing that the delay was inordinate and that the defendant had knowledge of the proceedings. The High Court, however, upheld the lower appellate court's order, finding that the discretion exercised was not perverse or illegal. The court emphasized that the absence of a registered address under Order VI Rule 14A CPC was a significant factor and that the defendant's explanation of non-service constituted sufficient cause. The revision application was dismissed with no order as to costs.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Condonation of Delay - Sufficient Cause - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - Order VI Rule 14A of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - The lower appellate court condoned a delay of 959 days in filing an appeal against an ex-parte decree, finding that the defendant was not properly served and no registered address was on record. The High Court upheld the condonation, holding that the absence of a registered address under Order VI Rule 14A CPC justified the delay and that the lower court's discretion was not perverse or illegal. (Paras 2-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the lower appellate court was justified in condoning a delay of 959 days in filing the appeal, considering the defendant's claim of non-service and absence of registered address.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the lower appellate court's order condoning the delay of 959 days. No order as to costs.
Law Points
- Condonation of delay
- Sufficient cause
- Ex-parte decree
- Order VI Rule 14A CPC
- Registered address
- Service of summons
