High Court Of Delhi
AKIESH CHANDRA MATHUR - Appellant
Versus
CANARA BANK - Respondent
First Appeal Order 103 of 1992
Decided On : 09/30/1993
ORDER 9 RULE 13 C. P. C. - SETTING ASIDE EX PARTE DECREE - ORDER 9 RULE 13 READ WITH SECTION 151 C. P. C. - SUMMARY
Fact of the Case:
Defendant failed to file a written statement or take steps to set aside ex parte proceedings within the time limit. He claimed that he was unable to engage an advocate due to a strike, his brother was seriously ill, and he only learned of the ex parte decree on August 10, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the defendant had not provided sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree. It also noted that the defendant had not requested an opportunity to lead evidence during the three years that the application was pending.
Issues: Whether the defendant had sufficient cause to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defendant had not provided sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree. It also noted that the defendant had not requested an opportunity to lead evidence during the three years that the application was pending.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal with costs.
( 1 ) SHRI Akiesh Chandra Mathur, Appellant, has filed this appeal against the order dated 12. 2. 1992 of Shri Ravi Kumar, Additional District Judge, Delhi, thereby dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 C. P. C. , moved by him for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 22. 7. 1988.
( 2 ) BRIEF facts, leading to the filing of this appeal are that Canara Bank, respondent/ plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as "plaintiff) filed a suit for recovery of Rs. 44,006. 80 paise against the appellant/defendant (hereinafter referred to as "defendant" ). The case came up for hearing on 7. 4. 1988, on which date, the defendant appeared, on whose prayer, the case was adjourned to 5. 5. 1988 for filing of the written statement. On this date, again, a request was made for further time by the defendant for filing the written statement and so the case was adjourned to 1. 6. 1988. There was no appearance on behalf of the defendant on that date and so ex-parte proceedings were ordered against him and the case was adjourned to 22. 7. 1988 for ex-parte evidence. No one appeared for the defendant on that date and so after recording the exparte evidence, the suit was decreed.
( 3 ) AN application dated 16. 8. 1988 was moved by the defendant, under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 C. P. C. for setting aside the exparte judgment and decree dated 22. 7. 1988. It was, inter-alia, pleaded by the defendant that on account of the strike by the advocates, no advocate could be engaged by him and so, on his request, made on 7. 4. 1988 the case was adjourned to 5. 5. 1988 and that on that date, his counsel Shri R. B. L. Srivastava could not be present on account the trouble in his eyes and so, the case was adjourned to 1. 6. 1988. Further averment made in the application has been that his brother Avinash Chandra Mathur was seriously ill during the last week of May, 1988 and who was got admitted in the hospital and the entire family was looking after him, on account of which, there was no appearance on 1. 6. 1988. It was also claimed that on 20. 6. 1988, his brother was operated upon for cancer. It was also claimed that on 18. 7. 1988, he came to know that the case was fixed for exparte evidence and on 22. 7. 1988, he had even gone to the court and came to know that exparte evidence was being recorded, but in spite of it, it was only on 10. 8. 1988 that his counsel inspected the file and came to know that exparte decree has been passed on 22. 7. 1988. It is, in these circumstances, that a prayer was made that the exparte judgment and decree be set aside.
( 4 ) THE application was opposed by the plaintiff. It was, inter-alia, pleaded that there was no sufficient cause for the setting aside of the exparte judgment and decree and it is stated that application is misconceived and same be dismissed. The illness of brother of the defendant, at the relevant time, is also disputed.
( 5 ) LEARNED appellate court, after hearing the arguments, passed the impugned order.
( 6 ) I have heard Shri R. S. Endlaw, learned counsel for the appellant and Shri Anil Chawla, learned counsel for the respondent and have also gone through through the record.
( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has gravely erred in not framing an issue and not giving opportunity to the parties to lead evidence. He has further submitted that the learned trial court has failed to exercise the jurisdiction, vested in it and has committed material irregularity, on account of which, the order cannot be sustained. A prayer has, therefore, been made that the appeal may be accepted and the impugned order may be set aside.
( 8 ) LEARNED counsel for the respondent has, on the other hand, submitted that the defendant/ appellant has been adopting delaying tactics having failed to file the written statement or to take steps for getting the exparte proceedings set aside within time. He has also submitted that the application da
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.