Back
JASPREET SINGH
Indra Wati – Appellant
Versus
Harihar Prasad Upadhyay – Respondent
JUDGMENT
Jaspreet Singh, J.
Heard Shri. M.E. Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri. Girish Chandra Sinha, learned counsel for the private-respondents.
2. The petitioner assails the order dated 19.10.2023 passed by the District Judge, Sultanpur whereby the appeal preferred by the private-respondents bearing No.51/2022 has been allowed, as a result, the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, filed by the private-respondents, which was dismissed by the trial Court by means of the order dated 20.05.2022 has been allowed by the appellate Court.
3. In order to put the controversy in a perspective, certain brief facts giving rise to the instant petition, are being noticed hereinafter.
4. The petitioner has filed a suit for cancellation of an agreement dated 27.08.2014. The said suit was registered as Regular Suit No.1272/2015 which came to be decided ex-parte on 25.09.2020. Against the said judgment and decree, the private-respondents moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 23.02.2021 which was registered as Misc. Case No.13/2021. Objections were submitted against the said application which found favour with the trial Court and the said application came to be dismiss
The appellate court's decision to set aside an ex-parte decree was justified due to inadequate notice and the nature of service, emphasizing a justice-oriented approach.
Section 27 gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has been effected when it is sent to correct address by registered post.
A defendant must demonstrate justifiable reasons for absence to succeed in an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
The court emphasized the necessity of adhering to procedural rules under the Code of Civil Procedure to ensure that ex-parte decrees are justly administered and not issued without proper evidence of ....
Proper service of summons is essential for the validity of court proceedings, and failure to adhere to the prescribed legal procedures can result in the setting aside of ex-parte decrees.
The legal point established is that the process server's reports must be witnessed, and the court must record satisfaction of 'deemed' service. The petitioner should have been given an opportunity to....
Parties cannot pursue stay applications simultaneously in different courts without risking delays; the conduct of petitioners may warrant dismissal of stay requests.
An application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC requires compelling reasons for absence; mere negligence does not justify setting aside an ex-parte decree.
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.
Negligence and lack of compelling reasons for absence in court proceedings justify the denial of applications to set aside ex-parte judgments under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC.
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
