Back
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL
Umaravati Bai (Died), through Legal Representative Ramesh Agrawal, S/o Late Ramkishan Agrawal – Appellant
Versus
Brijmohan Sahu, S/o Late Jagdish Ram Sahu – Respondent
ORDER :
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.
1. Assailing the legality, validity and correctness of the Order dated 30.4.2019 passed by Fourth Additional District Judge, Raipur in Misc. Civil Appeal No.9/2019 titled as “Smt. Umravati Bai v. Brijmohan Sahu and Others”, the present Civil Revision under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, CPC) has been preferred by the original Defendant Smt. Umravati Bai (who died during pendency of this Civil Revision and therefore the matter is now being pursued by her Legal Representative who has been brought on record), by which the appeal filed by her under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC has been dismissed affirming the Order dated 9.1.2019 passed by the First Civil Judge, Class-I, Raipur in Civil M.J.C. No.01/2010 whereby the application preferred by the Applicant/Defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of CPC has been rejected finding no sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree granted against her on 30.3.2005 after she being proceeded ex parte on 2.2.2002 in the Civil Suit filed by the Plaintiff.
2. The original Plaintiff namely Jagdish Ram Sahu (who also died during pendency of the matter before the Court below and
The Trial Court lacked jurisdiction to proceed ex parte when the matter was fixed for interlocutory proceedings, leading to the ex parte decree being set aside.
The court emphasized the necessity of allowing a defendant to participate in proceedings, ruling that procedural errors in ex-parte judgments violate principles of natural justice.
The discretion of the trial court to set aside an ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is essential to ensure a fair trial, particularly when the opposing party has not been given a reasonable ....
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement of intentional relinquishment or omission in the previous suit for the application of Order II Rule 2 CPC and the need for ident....
Revision petitions under Section 115 are non-maintainable against orders passed under Section 96; appeal should be under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure.
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
