Back
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Rahul Sachdeva – Appellant
Versus
Tarvinder Pal Singh – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Meenakshi I. Mehta, J.
By way of the instant revision petition, the petitioner-defendant No.4-applicant (here-in-after to be referred as 'the applicant') has assailed the order dated 12.12.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar (for short 'the trial Court'), whereby the application moved by him and his co-applicant-defendant No.3 under Order 9, Rule 13 read with section 151 CPC with a prayer to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 31.01.2011, has been dismissed and he (applicant) has also laid challenge to the judgment dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure P-4), handed down by learned Additional District Judge, Amritsar, (for short 'the Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal preferred by him against order Annexure P-2.
2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts, culminating in the filing of the present revision petition, are that respondent No.1- plaintiff (here-in-after to be referred as 'the plaintiff') filed a Civil Suit against the applicant and his co-defendants for seeking a decree for possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated 01.05.2006 or in the alternative, for th
Failure to demonstrate sufficient cause for delay in setting aside an ex parte decree results in dismissal of the application, emphasizing diligence and valid service of summons.
Ex-parte judgment – Ex-parte judgment should show the application of minimum requirement of consideration of the pleadings, issues, evidence and the relief sought for rendering such judgment - Litiga....
The court emphasized that the discretion to condone delay must be exercised judiciously, and the law of limitation must be applied rigorously.
Timely filing and valid explanations for delays are crucial in applications to set aside ex parte judgments under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC.
The court emphasized the importance of allowing a party to contest a case on merits, prioritizing justice over procedural delays in the context of the Limitation Act.
The court affirmed that a delay in challenging a decree cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, especially when the application lacks an adequate explanation for prolonged inaction.
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
