Back
VIKRAM NATH, PRASANNA B. VARALE
Dwarika Prasad (D) through LRs. – Appellant
Versus
Prithvi Raj Singh – Respondent
Summary of Facts:
Respondent-Prithvi Raj Singh filed civil suit O.S. No. 81 of 1988 against Appellant-Dwarika Prasad, seeking declaration that a sale deed dated 16.01.1979 regarding agricultural plots (No. 315 area 0.66 hectare at Itwarpur and No. 141 area 0.34 hectare at Bodha Nagria) executed by his grandfather Shri Guljari Lal in favor of Appellant was null and void due to fraud, alleging Appellant took the grandfather to Kasganj under pretext of treatment. (!) (!)
The First Additional Munsif, Kasganj, Etah passed an ex-parte decree on 11.04.1994 in favor of Respondent declaring the sale deed void, due to non-appearance of Appellant. (!)
Appellant, described as uneducated, old, and naive, filed restoration application under Order IX Rule 13 and Section 151 CPC on 31.10.1994, stating he trusted previous counsel Shri Ramgopal Singh who kept him unaware; he learned of the decree only on 27.10.1994 via new counsel Shri Ashok Kumar Verma after suspicion arose from Respondent's statements on 26.10.1994 and revenue court inspection, alleging previous counsel conspired with Respondent. (!)
Trial Court (Additional Civil Judge (JD), Kasganj) allowed restoration on 29.04.2000, finding Appellant illiterate, unaware due to counsel's fault, and deserving opportunity to be heard. (!)
Respondent filed revision (Civil Revision No. 51 of 2000) under Section 115 CPC on 10.05.2000, claiming application time-barred; Additional District Judge, Etah allowed it on 17.02.2004, holding no separate Section 5 Limitation Act application filed despite delay beyond 30 days from decree. (!)
Appellant filed writ petition (No. 18990/2004) against District Judge's order, arguing application filed within 30 days of knowledge (28.10.1994), no separate condonation needed; Allahabad High Court dismissed it on 24.05.2022, upholding time-bar from 11.04.1994 expiry on 11.05.1994, requiring Section 5 application. (!) (!) (!)
Appellant filed SLP (C) No. 11259/2022 (Civil Appeal No. 14380/2024), with notice issued but no counter-affidavit from Respondent. (!) (!)
JUDGMENT :
VIKRAM NATH, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal assails the final judgement and order passed by Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No. 18990/2024 on 24.05.2022 whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the order of the District Judge, Etah in Civil Revision No. 53 of 2000. The District Court, Etah (“Revisional Court”) had allowed the Civil Revision filed by Respondent Prithvi Raj Singh under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”) against the order dated 29.04.2000 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kasganj (“Trial Court”) in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 33/1994. The Trial Court thereby had allowed the restoration application under Order IX Rule 13 and section 151 of CPC filed by the Appellant Dwarika Prasad. The High Court has effectively dismissed the restoration application, confirming the ex-parte decree dated 11.04.1994 passed in favor of Respondent.
3. The facts leading to the present appeal are stated below:
Setting aside ex-parte decree – Courts should not shut out cases on mere technicalities but rather afford opportunity to both sides and thrash out matter on merits – Court cannot let the party suffer....
The court emphasized that technicalities should not be allowed to annul the adjudication made by the trial court and the appellate authorities, and that substantial justice should be done to the liti....
Point of law: Once court accepts explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisiiona....
Litigants are not penalized for their Advocate's negligence; restoration of a suit can be granted based on demonstrated sufficient cause for non-appearance.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the importance of fair opportunity to contest the suit and the right to property involved in the suit, along with the simultaneous resort to remedi....
Inherent powers under Section 151 CPC allow restoration of suits for substantial justice without a formal application for condonation of delay.
Setting aside ex-parte decree – Facts and events relating to passing of an ex-parte decree are distinct from facts and events relating to delayed filing of application for setting aside of ex-parte d....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
