Back
BEFORE THE MADURAI BENCH OF MADRAS HIGH COURT
R.VIJAYAKUMAR, J
Febrina Indra Neela @ Indra Febrina Thomas – Appellant
Versus
Jebasingh Jacob @ Sankar – Respondent
ORDER :
R.Vijayakumar, J.
The plaintiff in O.S.No.362 of 2012 on the file of the District Munsif Cum Judicial Magistrate Court, Radhapuram is the present revision petitioner challenging the order of the trial Court wherein the trial Court has allowed an application to condone the delay of 145 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree.
2.The revision petitioner herein has filed the above said suit for the relief of ejectment and for a direction to the defendant to pay a sum of Rs.600/- towards damages for use and occupation of the schedule building till surrender of possession.
3.The defendant was set exparte and an exparte decree came to be passed on 22.06.2015. The plaintiff had filed E.P.No.39 of 2015. The defendant has chosen to file the present application to condone the delay of 145 days in filing an application to set aside the exparte decree. According to the defendant, he had engaged a counsel at Tirunelveli to attend his case at Valliyur. Since the said counsel could not attend the hearing on the said date, an exparte decree came to be passed. Only when he received a notice in the execution proceedings, he came to know about the exparte decree and immediate
Cross-examination of a plaintiff does not constitute substantial evidence for the defendant; absence of evidence leads to an exparte decree.
A party seeking condonation of delay must show sufficient cause; mere procedural deficiencies in prior judgments do not automatically justify delay.
The sufficiency of cause for condoning extensive delay must be adequately demonstrated, with reliance on established legal precedents.
The court established that 'sufficient cause' under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. must be liberally construed to ensure justice, allowing for the setting aside of ex-parte decrees when valid reasons for no....
The court emphasized that delay in filing to set aside an ex parte decree must be justified with valid reasons, and a liberal approach does not permit fanciful explanations.
The court held that sufficient cause must be shown to condone delay under the Limitation Act, and mere negligence of legal counsel does not qualify as such.
A delay in filing to set aside an ex-parte decree cannot be condoned if the applicant's explanations are found to be false or lacking in bona fides.
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
