Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
SUDEEPTI SHARMA
Balbir Kaur – Appellant
Versus
Satish Kumar – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.
1. The prayer in the present petition is to set aside the ex parte order dated 31.08.2015, ex parte judgment and decree dated 07.04.2016 and order dated 09.11.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC as well as the judgment dated 08.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala.
2. Notice of motion.
3. On asking of this Court, Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate, accepts notice and filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.1.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the husband of petitioner No.1 i.e. Manjit Singh was defendant in a suit for recovery filed by the respondents/plaintiffs and husband of petitioner No.1/defendant was appearing in person. The matter was fixed for filing of written statement, but due to non-filing of written statement, cost of Rs.300/- was imposed by the trial Court vide its order dated 24.07.2015 and the matter was adjourned to 18.08.2015 for filing of written statement. On 18.08.2015, husband of petitioner No.1/defendant could not file written statement and the matter was again adjournment to 31.08.2025. He further submits
The court established that legal representatives of a defendant who has been proceeded against ex parte should have the opportunity to contest the matter, and limitation for setting aside such decree....
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....
Knowledge of the decree as outlined under Article 123 of the Limitation Act is critical for setting aside an ex parte order.
A party seeking to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree must demonstrate sufficient cause for non-appearance and file the application within a reasonable time, as per Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and Sec....
Each defendant in civil proceedings must fulfill their obligation independently. Persistent negligence cannot justify setting aside an ex parte order.
A defendant may set aside an ex-parte decree if sufficient cause for absence is shown, as per Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC.
The judgment emphasizes the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements before setting aside an ex-parte order, ensuring fair notification and opportunity for litigants.
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
