SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1995 Supreme(Ori) 109

High Court Of Orissa
ARIJIT PASAYAT
SIDHESWAR SAHU - Appellant
Versus
ARAKHITA JENA - Respondent
CIV. REVN.  114  Of  1995
Decided On : 05/15/1995

Advocates Appeared:
P.K.MOHANTY, P.K.ROUTRAY, P.R.Dutar, S.K.PANDEY

A party must show sufficient cause for the delay in filing an application to set aside an ex parte decree.

Headnote:

CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE - ORDER 9 RULE 13 - CONDONATION OF DELAY - SUFFICIENT CAUSE - LIBERAL APPROACH - DELAY IN FILING APPLICATION TO SET ASIDE EX PARTE DECREE - NO SUFFICIENT CAUSE - REVISION DISMISSED.

Fact of the Case:

Petitioner filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for setting aside an ex parte decree passed against him. He claimed that the delay in filing the application was due to the negligence of his counsel. The trial court and the appellate court dismissed the application, holding that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for the delay.

Finding of the Court:

The High Court held that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. The court noted that the petitioner had actively participated in several proceedings in various courts, including cases before the High Court itself. The court also noted that the petitioner had not come to court with clean hands, as he had filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC questioning the executability of the decree on the ground that it was an outcome of fraud.

Issues: Whether the petitioner had shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree.

Ratio Decidendi: The High Court held that the petitioner had not shown sufficient cause for the delay in filing the application to set aside the ex parte decree. The court noted that the petitioner had actively participated in several proceedings in various courts, including cases before the High Court itself. The court also noted that the petitioner had not come to court with clean hands, as he had filed an application under Section 47 of the CPC questioning the executability of the decree on the ground that it was an outcome of fraud.

Final Decision: The High Court dismissed the revision petition.

ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.


( 1 ) IN this application correctness of orders passed by learned Civil Judge, Senior Division, First Court, Cuttack and learned Second Addl. District Judge, Cuttack, while dealing with acceptability of petition filed by petitioner under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (in short, the 'code') for setting aside ex parte decree passed against him in T. S. No. 677 of 1986, is questioned.

( 2 ) BACKGROUND facts undisputed essentially, are as follows:opposite Parties herein brought T. S. No. 677 of 1986 against one Moti Bewa for specific performance of contract. Consequent upon the death of Moti, petitioner was substituted as defendant in her place as she was stated to be adopted mother of the petitioner. He traversed pleadings of the plaintiffs by filing written statement; but did not take any steps after 12-3-1991. He was set ex parte, suit was heard on 5-4-1991 and 4-4-1991 in his absence, and judgment decreeing the suit ex parte was pronounced on 1-5-1991. After sealing and signing of the decree, plaintiffs deposited the balance consideration amount and took steps to get the requires sale deed executed through Court. Petitioner refused to receive the notice relating to draft sale deed, and learned Civil Judge in his order dated 11-12-1993 held service of notice on him to be sufficient, and fixed 11-5-1994 as the date for filing sale deed on stamp paper. On the said date, petitioner appeared and filed a petition for stay of further proceeding, and on 12-5-1994 he filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code along with a petition under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act, 1953 (in short, 'limitation Act') for condoning delay. The application for setting aside the ex parte decree was registered as Misc. Case No. 272 of 1994. It was stated that on account of laches of his counsel there was non-appearance. Learned Civil Judge on analysis of facts situation and taking note of petitioner's participation in several proceedings on different dates, came to hold that plea of petitioner, throwing blames on his counsel was not acceptable. The application was accordingly dismissed. Appeal before learned Second Addl. District Judge not with the same fate. Both learned Civil Judge and learned Second Addl. District Judge held that factual position was distorted and the plea taken by petitioner regarding absence was not tenable.

( 3 ) IN support of the revision application, Mr. P. K. Routrary, learned counsel for petitioner submitted that decree obtained was the outcome of fraud practised on Court, and there was suppression of fact that a proceeding under Urban Land (Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1975 (is short, 'ceiling Act') was pending and in view of the bar prescribed under Section 42 of the said Act, there could not have been any adjudication, much less in favour of the opposite parties. It is further submitted that a liberal attitude is warranted while dealing with an applications for condonation of delay. A party does not stand to gain by abating from a proceeding and therefore, normal approach of the Court should be to accept prayer for restoration and/or to condone delay rather than reject it. Mr. S. K. Panda, learned counsel for opposite parties on the other hand submitted that petitioner has not come to this Court with clean hands. In large number of cases before various forums he was actively participating. In fact he was participating in several cases which were before this Court. It is further submitted that an application under Section 47 of the Code has been filed questioning executability of decree on the ground that it is an outcome of fraud. Therefore, the application under consideration deserves dismissal.

( 4 ) IT cannot be gainsaid that while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, liberal attitude is warranted. This position was succinctly stated by the Apex Court in Collector, Land Acquisition, Anantnag v. Mst. Katijl, AIR 1987 SC 1353. Legislature has







Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top