Case Note & Summary
The petitioner, Siddappa Savadi, filed a suit (O.S. No. 175/1995) for recovery of a loan amount of Rs. 1,80,000 against the respondents. The suit was decreed ex parte on 17.08.2001, and a decree was drawn on 21.08.2001. The respondents filed an appeal (RFA No. 116/2002) which was dismissed by the High Court. Thereafter, the respondents filed an application under Order IX 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 ex parte decree. Aggrieved, the petitioner filed the present writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution. The High Court heard both sides. The petitioner argued that the application was filed after a long delay and that the respondents had earlier participated in the suit. The respondents contended that they were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing. The High Court examined the Trial Court's order and found that it had recorded a finding that the respondents were prevented by sufficient cause. The High Court held that the Trial Court's discretion was exercised judicially and that there was no perversity or illegality warranting interference under Article 227. The writ petition was dismissed, and the Trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Headnote
A) Civil Procedure Code - Ex Parte Decree - Setting Aside - Order IX Rule 13 - Sufficient Cause - The petitioner obtained an ex parte decree for recovery of loan amount. The respondents filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree, which was allowed by the Trial Court. The High Court held that the Trial Court's order was based on a finding that the respondents were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing, and such finding did not warrant interference under Article 227. (Paras 2-6)
B) Civil Procedure Code - Limitation - Application under Order IX Rule 13 - The application was filed within limitation, and the Trial Court's discretion in allowing it was not perverse or illegal. (Para 5)
C) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Article 227 - Scope - The High Court in exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 cannot interfere with a finding of fact unless it is perverse or based on no evidence. (Para 6)
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Trial Court was justified in setting aside the ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on the ground that the defendants were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on the date of hearing.
Final Decision
The High Court dismissed the writ petition, upholding the Trial Court's order setting aside the ex parte decree. The Trial Court was directed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.
Law Points
- Order IX Rule 13 CPC
- Sufficient cause for setting aside ex parte decree
- Scope of Article 227
- Limitation for filing application to set aside ex parte decree
Case Details
2019 LawText (KAR) (03) 86
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
Civil writ petition challenging order setting aside ex parte decree in a loan recovery suit.
Remedy Sought
Petitioner sought to set aside 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, and sought direction to respondents to pay principal amount with interest.
Filing Reason
Petitioner was aggrieved by the Trial Court's order allowing the respondents' application under Order IX 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 IX 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 IX Rule 13 CPC on the ground of sufficient cause.
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Trial Court's order under Article 227 of the Constitution.
Submissions/Arguments
Petitioner argued that the application under Order IX Rule 13 was filed after a long delay and that the respondents had earlier participated in the suit, thus they were not prevented by sufficient cause.
Respondents contended that they were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing on the date of hearing and that the Trial Court's order was just and proper.
Ratio Decidendi
The High Court held that the Trial Court's finding that the respondents were prevented by sufficient cause from appearing was a finding of fact based on material on record. In exercise of supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227, the High Court cannot interfere with such a finding unless it is perverse or based on no evidence. The Trial Court's discretion was exercised judicially, and no interference was warranted.
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 loan. The suit 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 IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree. The Trial Court allowed the application on 20.02.2014. The petitioner then filed the present writ petition on 20.02.2014.
Acts & Sections
- Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC): Order IX Rule 13
- Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
