Back
RAVI NATH TILHARI, NYAPATHY VIJAY
P. Chandrakala – Appellant
Versus
Karnataka State Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd. – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
RAVI NATH TILHARI, J.
1. Heard Sri Maheswara Rao Kuncheam, learned counsel for the appellant, Sri N. Ashwani Kumar, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 and Sri Virupaksha Dattatreya Gouda, learned counsel representing Sri Vivekananda Virupaksha, learned counsel for respondent No. 8.
2. This appeal under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC has been filed by the appellant who is the applicant in E.A. Nos. 932 of 2023 and E.A. No. 290 of 2019 filed under Order 21 Rule 58 of CPC in E.P. No. 52 of 2007 in M.C. No. 185 of 2001. By means of this appeal, the appellant challenges the rejection of her application E.A. No. 932 of 2023 under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC by an order dated 11.09.2023.
3. The respondent No. 1-M/s. Karnataka State Industrial and Development Corporation Ltd., is the Decree Holder (D.Hr.) in M.C. No. 185 of 2001. Respondent Nos. 2 to 7 are the Judgment Debtors (J.Drs.). In E.P. No. 52 of 2007 for execution of decree by respondent No. 1, the property was attached. The appellant filed the application i.e. E.A. No. 290 of 2019 under Order 21 Rule 58, claiming the property. The said application was dismissed in non-prosecution on 04.07.2023 and for setting aside that order, E.A. No. 932
The court established that sufficient cause for non-appearance should be interpreted liberally to ensure justice and the right to a fair hearing.
The court established that 'sufficient cause' for non-appearance must be interpreted liberally, allowing for restoration of applications even after previous dismissals.
Lack of knowledge about an ex parte decree can be a sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing a petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
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....
An application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC requires compelling reasons for absence; mere negligence does not justify setting aside an ex-parte decree.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, emphasizing that it is an elastic expression to be determined based on the fact....
Setting aside ex-parte decree – Real test for adjudication of a petition under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is whether litigant upon learning about ex-parte decree takes immediate steps in filing application....
Negligence and lack of compelling reasons for absence in court proceedings justify the denial of applications to set aside ex-parte judgments under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC.
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
