Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT
Phulsundari D/o Phulchand – Appellant
Versus
Rambai S/o Late Sairam – Respondent
ORDER :
1. An order dated 13.03.2024 passed by 3rd Civil Judge Class-II, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh in Miscellaneous Civil Suit No. 31/2017 is under challenge in this petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. By the impugned order, the learned Civil Judge allowed an application filed by respondents No. 1 & 2 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (for short “CPC”) read with Section 5 of Limitation Act, 1963 (for short” Act of 1963”). Consequently, the judgment and decree dated 08.01.2008, passed in Civil Suit No.63 A/ 2005 has been set aside.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner/ plaintiff had filed a civil suit before the learned Civil Judge against one Sairam and others which was registered as Civil Suit No.63 A/ 2005 seeking a declaration of title, possession and permanent injunction regarding properties detailed in the plaint. Respondents No.1 & 2 are the legal heirs of Late Sairam, who was original defendant No.1 in the civil suit. Sairam passed away after the passing of the decree. While the suit was pending before the learned Civil Judge, the petitioner/ plaintiff entered into a compromise with S
Once an ex-parte decree is merged with an appellate decree, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is not maintainable as per legislative intent.
A defendant must demonstrate justifiable reasons for absence to succeed in an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
Only a defendant in a suit can file an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex-parte decree; a non-party lacks locus standi.
The court upheld the trial court's discretion in rejecting the application to restore a suit dismissed for default, finding no sufficient cause for the appellants' absence during proceedings.
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....
Application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. in application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. has to be allowed although this shall not permit petitioners at stage of Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to expand dimensio....
The court reinforced that obstruction claims in execution proceedings must be heard to uphold rights, ensuring adherence to natural justice principles.
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
