SUDERSHAN KUMAR MISRA, J.

1. The respondent, State Bank of India instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.3,33,854.52 against the appellants Sh. Kulvinder Singh and Smt. Harjeet Kaur. On 3.12.2001, the trial court passed an ex parte decree against the appellants who were the defendants in that suit. After about 2 years, i.e., on 24.11.2003, the defendants moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the exparte decree. They also moved an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in moving the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. There the appellants contended that they were not aware of the passing of the decree because they were away to Ludhiana and that they came to know of this fact only on 15.11.2003 from the officials of the plaintiff bank. Thereafter, defendant No.1 inspected the court file on 17.11.2003 and moved the application under Order 9 Rule 13 on 24.11.2003. According to the appellants, there was no intentional or deliberate lapse on their part in moving the applications for restoration and condonation of delay. The respondent traversed these assertions and contended that the applications failed to disclose relevant m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document