Back
ALOK MATHUR
Ram Narayan – Appellant
Versus
District Judge, District Sultanpur – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Alok Mathur, J.
Heard Sri Vinod Kumar Tiwari, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Sri Rudra Mani Shukla, learned counsel for private respondents.
2. By means of present writ petition, the petitioners have assailed the order dated 14.02.2024 passed by Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), North, court No. 25, Sultanpur whereby rejecting the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC preferred by the petitioner as well as order dated 22.03.2024 passed by District Judge, Sultanpur whereby dismissing the Appeal No. 124/2024 preferred by the petitioner against the order of Civil Judge.
3. The facts in brief are that respondent No. 3 had filed a suit for permanent injunction against respondent No.7. During suit proceedings, parties had entered into a compromise which was filed before the trial court and the suit was also decreed on the basis of compromise by means of order dated 12.03.2022. The Civil Judge (Jr. Div.), Sultanpur in its order has specifically recorded that the parties presented the compromise before this Court and the respective counsel had identified the parties to the said compromise on the basis of which the suit was decreed.
4. Subsequently, the petitioner claiming himself
Only a defendant in a suit can file an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC to set aside an ex-parte decree; a non-party lacks locus standi.
A defendant must demonstrate justifiable reasons for absence to succeed in an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
The main legal point established is that a party cannot seek relief beyond what was pressed in an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC.
Once an ex-parte decree is merged with an appellate decree, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is not maintainable as per legislative intent.
Application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. in application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. has to be allowed although this shall not permit petitioners at stage of Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. to expand dimensio....
Section 146 of the CPC should be given the widest connotation, allowing parties to contest their rights, even within the limited scope of specific rules such as Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
The court emphasized the necessity for trial courts to consider the circumstances of defendants, particularly in rural contexts, when evaluating applications to set aside ex parte decrees.
Parties cannot pursue stay applications simultaneously in different courts without risking delays; the conduct of petitioners may warrant dismissal of stay requests.
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
