Back
DWARKA DHISH BANSAL
Babulal – Appellant
Versus
Hira Kalar – Respondent
ORDER
1. This civil revision has been preferred by the applicants/defendants challenging the order dated 7.3.2019 passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Umariya in miscellaneous civil appeal No.05/2014 affirming the order dated 29.9.2012 passed by 1st Additional Civil Judge Class-II, Umariya in MJC No.08/2010.
2. As narrated by learned counsels appearing for the parties, the short facts of the case are that a civil suit was filed by the respondents 1-5 for declaration of title and permanent injunction, which was decreed ex-parte on 26.09.1995 and for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, an application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC by the defendants/applicants was filed on 29.7.1997 which was dismissed in default on 25.8.2005. For restoration of the aforesaid application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC, an application under Order 9 rule 9 CPC was filed on 5.10.2005 with delay of about 10-12 days, which was dismissed on 29.9.2012 for want of application under section 5 of the limitation Act. Consequently, the defendants filed miscellaneous appeal against the order dated 29.9.2012, which has been dismissed by the impugned order dated 7.3.2019 holding it to be not maintainable.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the lack of provision for restoration of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC can be overcome by treating the application as one un....
A court must condone delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before considering applications under Order IX Rule 9 CPC to ensure jurisdictional compliance.
Applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act are typically inapplicable to proceedings under Order XXI of CPC unless exceptional circumstances dictate otherwise.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a party cannot be deprived of justice on technical grounds, and the court can exercise discretion to condone delay in the absence of a formal ....
The court established that a formal application for condonation of delay is not mandatory under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, allowing for discretion in restoring applications.
Point of law: Once court accepts explanation as sufficient it is the result of positive exercise of discretion and normally the superior court should not disturb such finding, much less in revisiiona....
Proper service of summons must adhere to the provisions of the CPC, and a party cannot benefit from their own negligence in failing to provide accurate contact information, which affects the validity....
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
