Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, who were the original defendants in Regular Civil Suit No. 42/2014/B, filed a Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, challenging the order dated 30/04/2016 passed by the Civil Judge, Senior Division, Ponda, rejecting their application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to set aside the ex-parte decree. The suit was filed by the respondents/plaintiffs for declaration and injunction. The Trial Court decreed the suit ex-parte on 30/04/2016. The defendants filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree, which was rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that the defendants failed to show sufficient cause for their non-appearance and the application was barred by limitation. The High Court, after hearing the parties, upheld the Trial Court's order, holding that the defendants had knowledge of the suit and the decree, and the explanation for non-appearance was not satisfactory. The Court also noted that the application was filed beyond the period of limitation and the defendants failed to provide sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Civil Revision Application was dismissed.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure - Ex-parte Decree - Setting Aside - Sufficient Cause - Order IX Rule 13 CPC - The petitioners/defendants sought to set aside an ex-parte decree passed in Regular Civil Suit No. 42/2014/B. The Trial Court rejected the application on the ground that the defendants failed to show sufficient cause for their non-appearance on the date of hearing. The High Court upheld the rejection, noting that the defendants had knowledge of the suit and the decree, and the explanation for non-appearance was not satisfactory. (Paras 1-10) B) Limitation - Application to Set Aside Ex-parte Decree - Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 - The application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed beyond the period of limitation. The defendants sought condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, but failed to provide sufficient cause for the delay. The High Court held that the Trial Court correctly rejected the application as time-barred. (Paras 1-10)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court erred in rejecting the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC read with Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 30/04/2016, on the ground that the defendants failed to show sufficient cause for their non-appearance and the application was barred by limitation.
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
- Sufficient cause for setting aside ex-parte decree
- Limitation for application to set aside ex-parte decree
- Order IX Rule 13 CPC
- Section 5 of Limitation Act
