Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Siddappa Savadi, filed a suit (O.S.No.175/1995) for recovery of money against the respondents. The suit was decreed ex parte on 17.08.2001, directing the respondents to pay Rs.1,80,000/- within six months. The respondents, claiming they were not aware of the suit, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC in Misc.No.18/2012 to set aside the ex parte decree. The Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamakhandi, allowed the application on 20.02.2014, setting aside the decree. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court heard both sides. The court noted that the respondents had filed the application within limitation from the date of knowledge and had shown sufficient cause for non-appearance. The High Court found no error in the Trial Court's order warranting interference under Article 227 and dismissed the writ petition.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Ex Parte Decree - Setting Aside - Order 9 Rule 13 - Sufficient Cause - The petitioner obtained an ex parte decree for recovery of money. The respondents filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, which was allowed by the Trial Court. The High Court upheld the order, holding that the respondents had shown sufficient cause for their non-appearance as they were not aware of the suit proceedings and the summons were not properly served. (Paras 2-6)
B) Civil Procedure Code - Limitation - Application under Order 9 Rule 13 - Article 123 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The application was filed within 30 days from the date of knowledge of the decree, which is within the prescribed period of limitation. The High Court found no infirmity in the Trial Court's order. (Paras 4-6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on the ground of sufficient cause.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the order of the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamakhandi dated 20.02.2014 in Misc.No.18/2012, which set aside the ex parte decree.
Law Points
- Order 9 Rule 13 CPC
- Sufficient cause for setting aside ex parte decree
- Scope of Article 227
- Limitation for filing application under Order 9 Rule 13
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (03) 40
Writ Petition No.110699 of 2014 (GM-CPC)
Sri. S. M. Jatti for petitioner, Sri. Abhishek Patil for Sri. M. G. Naganuri for respondents
Sri. Siddappa S/o Kallappa Savadi
Smt. Sushma W/o Dattatraya Pote and Raghavendra S/o Dattatraya Pote
Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more)
Subscribe Now
Nature of Litigation
Writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging an order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamakhandi in Misc.No.18/2012 dated 20.02.2014, which set aside an ex parte decree in a money suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside the impugned order and direct the respondents to pay the principal amount with up-to-date interest.
Filing Reason
The petitioner was aggrieved by the order of the Trial Court allowing the respondents' application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree.
Previous Decisions
The suit O.S.No.175/1995 was decreed ex parte on 17.08.2001. The respondents' appeal RFA No.116/2002 was dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter, the respondents filed Misc.No.18/2012 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which was allowed on 20.02.2014.
Issues
Whether the Trial Court was justified in setting aside the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on the ground of sufficient cause.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the respondents had knowledge of the suit and the ex parte decree should not be set aside.
Respondents contended that they were not aware of the suit proceedings and the summons were not properly served, and they filed the application within limitation from the date of knowledge.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the respondents had shown sufficient cause for their non-appearance and the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed within the period of limitation. The Trial Court's order did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or perversity warranting interference under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Judgment Excerpts
Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned counsel for the respondents.
The instant writ petition is preferred praying to set aside the order passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge, Jamakhandi in Misc.No.18/2012, Dated:20.02.2014...
Procedural History
The petitioner filed O.S.No.175/1995 for recovery of money, which was decreed ex parte on 17.08.2001. The respondents filed RFA No.116/2002, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the respondents filed Misc.No.18/2012 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree, which was allowed on 20.02.2014. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order 9 Rule 13
- Limitation Act, 1963: Article 123
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
