Case Note & Summary
The appellant, Dipak Development Corporation, a partnership firm, filed an appeal against the order of the City Civil Court, Mumbai, dismissing its application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to set aside an ex-parte decree passed in a suit for specific performance of contract. The respondents, legal heirs of Vithaldas Mathuradas Sampat, had filed the suit against the appellant and others. The appellant was served with summons but failed to appear, leading to an ex-parte decree. The appellant contended that it had a good defence and that the non-appearance was due to the belief that the suit would not proceed. The court, however, found that the appellant had knowledge of the suit and did not provide a reasonable explanation for its absence. The court held that the appellant failed to show sufficient cause and dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's order.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ex-parte Decree - Setting Aside - Order 9 Rule 13 CPC - Sufficient Cause - The appellant failed to appear despite knowledge of the suit and service of summons; the explanation that the appellant was under the impression that the suit would not proceed was held to be insufficient. The court held that mere knowledge of the suit and failure to appear without reasonable explanation does not constitute sufficient cause. (Paras 1-11)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant had sufficient cause for non-appearance to warrant setting aside of the ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The appeal was dismissed, affirming the trial court's order refusing to set aside the ex-parte decree.
Law Points
- Order 9 Rule 13 CPC
- Sufficient cause for setting aside ex-parte decree
- Knowledge of proceedings
- Due diligence
- Reasonable explanation for non-appearance
Case Details
2016 LawText (BOM) (09) 68
Appeal from Order No. 482 of 2015 with Civil Application No. 621 of 2015
Dipak Development Corporation
Veena Vithaldas Sampat, Sachin Vithaldas Sampat, Meena Prakash Patkar, Jaydeep Keshavji Sampat, Mrs. Asha V. Pinakin, Mrs. Sandhya Dinesh, Haridas Mathuradas Sampat (deleted), Usha Haridas Sampat, Manish Haridas Sampat, Umesh Haridas Sampat, Madhavdas Mathuradas Sampat, Ashwin Tulsidas Devji Sampat, Sunil Tulsidas Devji Sampat, Preeti Pradeep Ved
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Appeal against order refusing to set aside ex-parte decree in a suit for specific performance of contract.
Remedy Sought
Appellant sought to set aside the ex-parte decree passed against it.
Filing Reason
Appellant failed to appear in the suit despite service of summons, leading to ex-parte decree.
Previous Decisions
The trial court dismissed the appellant's application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
Issues
Whether the appellant had sufficient cause for non-appearance to set aside the ex-parte decree.
Submissions/Arguments
Appellant argued that it had a good defence and that non-appearance was due to the belief that the suit would not proceed.
Respondents argued that the appellant had knowledge of the suit and failed to appear without reasonable explanation.
Ratio Decidendi
Knowledge of proceedings and failure to appear without reasonable explanation does not constitute sufficient cause under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
Judgment Excerpts
The appellant failed to show sufficient cause for non-appearance.
Procedural History
The respondents filed a suit for specific performance against the appellant. The appellant was served but did not appear, resulting in an ex-parte decree. The appellant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, which was dismissed by the trial court. The appellant then filed the present appeal.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908: Order 9 Rule 13
