Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
VIVEK CHAUDHARY, RENU BHATNAGAR
Daya Kishan Goel – Appellant
Versus
Ramesh Chander Goel – Respondent
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dismissal of previous applications under cpc (Para 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. final dismissal of appeals (Para 5 , 11) |
| 3. disagreement on interpretations of the supreme court order (Para 6) |
| 4. supreme court's intention clarified (Para 7 , 8 , 10) |
| 5. re-filing application under cpc addressed (Para 9) |
JUDGMENT :
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeals have been filed assailing the Order dated 28.08.2025 passed in I.A. No. 16751/2025 in CS (OS) 1239/2008 and I.A. No. 16971/2025 in CS (OS) No. 1240/2008, inter alia, the application of the appellant filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC has been dismissed.
3. It is pertinent to note that the appellant had earlier also filed applications under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, which were dismissed by the Single Judge of this Court. The appeals filed by the appellant challenging the said order were also dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court.
4. The matter reached the Supreme Court by way of Civil Appeal Nos. 10255-10256 of 2024, decided on 08.05.2025, in which the following Order was passed:-
1. The respondent-plaintiff filed two money suits against the appellant-defendant and his minor son in C.S. (O.S.) No. 123
Repeated applications under Order IX Rule 13 after dismissal are impermissible if previously affirmed by a higher court, reaffirming the limitation provisions under the Limitation Act.
A defendant must demonstrate justifiable reasons for absence to succeed in an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
No limitation under Article 137 for Order IX Rule 7 CPC; ex parte parties may participate in ongoing proceedings if good cause shown.
The main legal point established is the applicability of Order IX Rule 13 to orders passed under Order VIII Rule 10 and the permissibility of applying for setting aside of the order under Order VIII ....
The court ruled that appeals against ex-parte decrees must be filed under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the CPC, not Section 96, which applies to original decrees.
The mentioning of a wrong provision or non-mentioning of a provision does not invalidate an order if the court had the requisite jurisdiction.
Bar under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code does not apply in a suit for partition, since the right to enforce partition is a legal incident of a joint tenancy, and as long as such tenancy subsists, any of....
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
