ORDER: The defendants 2, 3 and 4 in O.S.No.12 of 2000 are the revision petitioners herein. The suit was filed by the plaintiff/respondent herein for declaration and for permanent injunction. Except the revision petitioners herein others contested the suit. The revision petitioners were set ex parte by the trial Court on 25.9.2002. Later the suit was decreed on 22.4.2003 against all the eight defendants on merits. It is stated by the petitioners that after receipt of notice in E.P.No.110 of 2003 in O.S. No.12 of 2000, they came to know that they were set ex parte.

2. On 23.11.2003, the petitioners herein filed a petition to set aside the ex parte decree along with a petition to condone the delay of 425 days in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. The trial Court dismissed the said petition filed under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, on the ground that the suit itself was decreed as early as 24.2.2003 and hence, the petition to set aside the ex parte decree is not maintainable and the reasons assigned for condoning the inordinate delay of 425 days are not valid. Hence, the present revision.

3. Heard the learned counsel appearing for either side. O.9, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code contemplates that:

"In any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the Court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit; and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit:

Provided that where the decree is of such a nature that it cannot be set aside as against such defendant only it may be set aside against all or any of the other defendants also:

Provided further that no Court shall set aside a decree passed ex parte merely on the ground that there has been an irregularity in the service of summons, if it is satisfied that the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had sufficient time to appear and answer the plaintiff’s claim.

Explanation: Where there has been an appeal as against a decree passed ex parte under this rule, and the appeal has been disposed of on any ground other than the ground that the appellant has withdrawn the appeal, no application shall lie under this rule for setting aside that ex parte decree."

4. Now, we look into the provisions of Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, which runs as follows:

"Extension of prescribed period in certain cases: Any appeal or any application, other than an application under any of the provisions of O.21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (V of 1908) may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the appellant or the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not preferring the appeal or making the application within such period."

5. The above said provisions of O.9, Rule 13 makes it clear that a defendant, who sought to set aside the ex parte decree passed against him must satisfy the Court by assigning valid reasons and approach the Court in time. Under Sec.5 of the Limitation Act, the application may be admitted after the prescribed period, if the applicant satisfies the Court that he had sufficient cause for not making the application within such period.

6. In this case, the revision petitioners were set ex parte on 25.9.2002 and thereafter, the suit was decreed on 22.4.2003 as against all the defendants and the respondent herein also filed E.P. No.110 of 2003 as early as 2003. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed the application to condone the delay as well as to set aside the ex parte decree only on 23.11.2003.

7. I have carefully perused the affidavit filed by the revision petitioners. The revision petitioners are three in number, in which the first petitioner is the father an

Click Here to Read the rest of this document