Case Note & Summary
The case involves a civil revision application filed by the original defendants (applicants) against an order of the Civil Judge Senior Division, Khed, dated 30th June 2014, rejecting their application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) to set aside an ex-parte decree. The respondents (original plaintiffs) had filed a suit for declaration and injunction in 1999. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 30th April 2001. The applicants filed the application to set aside the decree on 24th February 2014, i.e., after a delay of about 13 years. The trial court rejected the application on the ground that the applicants failed to show sufficient cause for the delay. The applicants then approached the High Court in revision. The High Court examined the reasons given by the applicants for the delay, which included that they were not aware of the suit proceedings and that the process server had not served them properly. The court noted that the applicants had not taken any steps to ascertain the status of the suit despite being aware of the litigation. The court held that the explanation was not satisfactory and that the delay was inordinate. The court also observed that the trial court had correctly exercised its discretion in rejecting the application. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the order of the trial court.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ex-parte Decree - Setting Aside - Order 9 Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Condonation of Delay - The applicants sought to set aside an ex-parte decree passed in 2001 by filing an application in 2014, i.e., after a delay of 13 years. The court held that the explanation for the delay was not satisfactory and that the applicants failed to show sufficient cause. The revision was dismissed. (Paras 1-10) B) Limitation Act - Condonation of Delay - Section 5, Limitation Act, 1963 - Sufficient Cause - The court reiterated that the expression 'sufficient cause' must be liberally construed but the party seeking condonation must explain each day's delay. In this case, the applicants merely stated that they were not aware of the decree, which was not accepted as sufficient cause given the long delay and lack of diligence. (Paras 5-9)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the delay of 13 years in filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to set aside an ex-parte decree should be condoned, and whether the applicants had sufficient cause for the delay.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the civil revision application, upholding the trial court's order rejecting the application to set aside the ex-parte decree.
Law Points
- Order 9 Rule 13 CPC
- Section 5 Limitation Act
- 1963
- Sufficient cause for condonation of delay
- Ex-parte decree
- Inordinate delay
