Case Note & Summary
The appellant, M/s. CliniRX Research Pvt. Ltd., was the original defendant in a money suit filed by the respondent, Bicare Limited, for recovery of money. The suit was decreed ex parte on 28th July 2016. 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 dismissed by the trial court on 6th March 2017. The defendant appealed against this dismissal. The High Court examined the facts: the plaintiff had filed Special Civil Suit No.22 of 2014 (later renumbered as Spl. Civil Suit No.2 of 2016) for money recovery. Summons were served on the defendant at its registered office, and the defendant appeared through an advocate and sought time to file a written statement. However, the defendant failed to file the written statement despite opportunities, and the court passed a 'no written statement' order on 23rd July 2014. The plaintiff's evidence was recorded, and the suit was adjourned for judgment. While the suit was pending for judgment, the defendant filed an application to set aside the ex parte decree, claiming that the summons were not duly served and that there was sufficient cause for non-appearance. The trial court dismissed the application, holding that the summons were duly served and that the defendant had knowledge of the suit but chose not to appear. The High Court upheld this finding, noting that the defendant had appeared through an advocate and sought time, which indicated knowledge of the suit. The court also noted that the defendant's explanation of change of advocate and lack of communication was not credible. The court held that the defendant failed to show sufficient cause for non-appearance and that the trial court's order was justified. The appeal was dismissed, and the ex parte decree was upheld.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ex Parte Decree - Setting Aside - Order 9 Rule 13 CPC - Service of Summons - The appellant challenged the dismissal of its application to set aside an ex parte decree in a money suit. The court held that the summons were duly served on the defendant at its registered office and the defendant had knowledge of the suit but failed to appear. The trial court's finding of due service was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. (Paras 1-30) B) Civil Procedure - Sufficient Cause - Non-Appearance - Order 9 Rule 13 CPC - The court examined whether the defendant had sufficient cause for non-appearance. It found that the defendant's explanation of change of advocate and lack of communication was not credible, as the defendant had appeared through an advocate and sought time. The court held that the defendant failed to show sufficient cause. (Paras 15-25)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the appellant/defendant had sufficient cause for non-appearance and whether the summons were duly served, warranting setting aside of the ex parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.
Final Decision
The appeal is dismissed. The order dated 6th March 2017 passed by the learned Joint Civil Judge, Senior Division, Rajguru Nagar, Khed, dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is upheld.
Law Points
- Order 9 Rule 13 CPC
- Service of summons
- Ex parte decree
- Setting aside ex parte decree
- Sufficient cause
- Due service
