JUDGMENT M.R- Verma, J. (Oral):- This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereafter referred to as the Code) as directed against the order dated 28.6.2001. whereby the learned Additional district Judge has dismissed the appeal of the petitioner against the order dated 10.5.2000. passed by the learned sub Judge (I), Dharamsala. dismissng the applciaiton of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of the code for setting aside an ex-parte decree against him.

2. The brief and admitted facts leading to the presentation of the present petition are that respondent institud civil Suit No. 15 of 1992 against the petitioner and for default of appearance of the petitioner, the suit was decreed ex-parte on 29.7.1992. The petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside ex-parte decree alongwith an applciaiton under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside ex-parte decree on 22.6.1996. The case of the petitioner, as averred in the applications, is that the summons s issued to him at the address of his native place were not served on him and the report of the Process Server that the summons were served on him through his mother, was wrong and that the petitioner, when appeared in the execution proceedings at a later stage, came to know about the ex-parte decree which was being sought to be executed against him and. thus, it is claimed that there was sufficient cause for condonation of delay in filing the application for setting aside ex-parte decree and also for setting aside the ex-parte decree.

3. The respondent ontested the applications by averring in his reply that there was due service on the petitioner and the applications are not only frivolous but also barred by limitation and deserved to be dismissed with costs.

4. The trial Court framed the following issues:

1. Whether there are sufficient reasons to set aside ex- parte decree dated 29.7.1992. as alleged? OPA

2. Whether there are sufficient reasons to condone the delay caused in moving this application under Order

9. Rule 13 CPC ?OPA.

3. Relief. On the basis of the material brought on record by the parties, the learned sub Judge decided both the aforesaid issues against the petitioner and accordingly dismissed the applications. The appeal preferred by the petitioner was dismissed by the learned Addl. District Judge (I) Kangra. vide his judgment dated 28.6.2001. Hence the present revision petition.

5. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the material placed on record.

6. The delay in filing an applciatron can be condocned only on a sufficient cause being shown by the party seeking such condonation. The Courts, however, have been liberal in construsing the expression "sufficient cause" provided that the delay i not intentional or deliberate and there is no gross negligence on the part of the party seeking condonation. In view of the findings of the appellate Court below, there had been no proper service of the summons of the suit on the respondent, therefore the delay in filing the application, till the petitioner acquired knowledge of the ex-parte decree, stands duly explained. However, the question which arises for consideration is whether after having acquired the knowledge of the ex-parte decree against him. the petitioner had moved the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree with due diligence or he was prevented by any sufficient cause from making such application within the reasonable time after acquiring the knowledge of the ex-parte decree. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he came to know about the ex-parte decree against him when he appeared in the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent for execution of the ex-parte decree in question. It is admitted case of the petitioner that he did appear in the execution proceedings initiated by the respondent for executing ex-parte decree against him. b

Click Here to Read the rest of this document