The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for applications under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to be filed within the prescribed limitation period and with sufficient cause. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of considering the conduct of the parties during the trial.

Judgment

U.C. Maheshwari, J.:-

The applicant/plaintiff/decree holder has directed this revision under Section 115 of CPC being aggrieved by the order dated 15.5.2007 passed by the District Judge, Jabalpur in Misc. Appeal No. 15/2007 whereby allowing the appeal of the respondent and reversing the order dated 23.4:2007 passed by 3rd Civil Judge Class- II, Jabalpur in M. J. C. No.57/06 dismissing the respondents application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 12.9.2006 passed in Civil Original Suit No.44-A/03 holding the same to be barred by limitation, the case has been remitted back to the trial Court with a direction to decide the aforesaid application of Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC on merits.

2. The facts given rise to this revision in short are that the applicant herein filed the eviction suit against the respondent/defendant in respect of nonresidential accommodation described in the plaint situated at Plot No.12/1 and 12/2 Block No.83, Jaiprakash Nagar (East) Marhatal, Civic Centre, Jabalpur. The summons of aforesaid civil suit was duly served on the respondent pursuant to that he appeared through counsel and also filed his written statement. As the rent of accommodation was neither paid nor deposited by the applicant for a longer period, on which an application under Section 13 (6) of M.P. Accommodation Control Act 1963 ("In short the Act") was filed on behalf of the applicant. On consideration in presence of both the parties vide order dated 14.10.2005 the defence of the respondent was struck of. Thereafter, the case was posted for recording the evidence, pursuant to that on 2.3.2006 the applicant had filed the in-chief of his witness under the provision of Order 18 Rule 4 of CPC instead to cross examine such witness an adjournment was sought by the respondents counsel in this regard, on which in presence of the respondents counsel the case was posted on 8.4.2006 for cross-examination of said witness. But on such date no one was appeared on behalf of the respondent to defend the suit. On which the case was proceeded ex-party against the respondent. The applicant has closed his evidence and case was posted for final argument. In pendency of the suit for final argument an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of CPC was filed on behalf of the respondent on 18.5.2006. On consideration the same was dismissed on merits vide order dated 26.8.2006 and aforesaid suit of the applicant was-decreed ex-parte vide judgment dated 12.9.2006. Subsequent to such decree, beyond the period of limitation i.e. 30 days on behalf of the respondent, the impugned application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, was filed. The same was seriously opposed by the applicant on the ground of limitation, as the same was filed beyond the limitation of 30 days prescribed under Article 123 of Limitation Act 1963 without filing any application under Section 5 of Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing the same. Considering such objection of the applicant the aforesaid application of the respondent filed for setting aside the ex-parte decree was dismissed by the trial Court holding the same is filed barred by the prescribed limitation. It is noted that as per case of the respondent he spent some period in obtaining the certified copies of the aforesaid ex-party judgment and decree and as per provision of Section 12 of Limitation Act, such period spent in obtaining the aforesaid certified copies deserves to be excluded from the period of limitation in filing such application. While such case of the respondent was opposed by the applicant on the ground that as per provision of Section 12 (1) of Limitation Act the period spent in obtaining the certified copy of the judgment and decree could not be excluded as certified copy of the judgment and decree was not required to file the aforesaid application and as per Article 123 of Limitation Act period of 30 days from th