Honble MITAL, CJ. — The suit was filed by the respondent under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the Petitioner. The petitioner filed an application for leave to defend. That application was dismissed in default of the appearance of the objector. Few days after expiry of 30 days, an application was filed under Order 37 Rule 4 read with Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. The court applied the limitation of 30 days and held that the application was beyond limitation and dismissed it on this ground alone. This is revision against the said order.

(2). The learned counsel for the petitioner argues that Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is not applicable to this case and for filing an application under Order 37 Rule 4 C.P.C, which is the provision applicable in this case, the residuary period of limitation of three years under Article 137 of the Limitation Act will apply and not the one provided for filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. In support of this argument, he relies on the decision of Chief Justice Chhagla in P.N.Films Ltd. Vs. Oversea Films„Corporation Limited (1). The contention is fully supported by the above referred decision.

(3). Accordingly, the revision is allowed. The order of court below dated 17.9.90 is set aside and the matter is sent back to the court below to decide the application within the four corners of the provisions of Order 37 Rule 4 C.P.C. viz., regarding the special circumstances, if any, which may justify the setting aside of the order.

(4). The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the court below on 23rd September,1994.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document