Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA, J
Nandu – Appellant
Versus
Tammu – Respondent
Order :
1. The present appeal has been filed against the order dated 23.07.2024 passed by Additional District Judge No.3, Bhilwara in Civil Original Suit No.51/2024 whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151, CPC as filed on behalf of applicant-defendant No.1, stood rejected.
2. The case of the applicant is that in the suit for partition and permanent injunction as preferred on behalf of the respondents- plaintiffs, after service of notice on her, she engaged a lawyer who had assured her that she would be informed about the case proceedings as and when required. However, she received no information from the counsel and it was only in the year 2021 when the notice for final decree was served on her that she came to know about the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2024 passed ex-parte against her.
3. It is further submitted that at the first instance, she preferred S.B. Civil First Appeal No.221/2022 before this Court challenging the judgment and decree dated 15.12.2014 but then withdrew the same with a liberty to move an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC. In pursuance to the liberty granted in the said First Appeal, the present application in question under
Litigants must remain vigilant about their legal proceedings and cannot solely blame their counsel for lack of information; failure to show reasonable cause for delay in seeking relief results in rej....
The legal point established is that the process server's reports must be witnessed, and the court must record satisfaction of 'deemed' service. The petitioner should have been given an opportunity to....
Procedural rules should not obstruct the pursuit of justice; parties must be allowed to present defenses unless substantial prejudice would result.
If summons issued on the correct address have not been returned, the presumption is that the summons has been received by the addressee.
Litigants should not suffer due to the negligence of their counsel; sufficient cause must be shown to set aside ex-parte decrees.
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 Trial Court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and against the appellant without ensuring notice to the appellant and/or his counsel had been effected was in violation ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of 'sufficient cause' under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, emphasizing that it is an elastic expression to be determined based on the fact....
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
