ORDER

1. This civil revision under section 115 of CPC has been filed against order dated 6.7.2015 passed by Second Additional District Judge, Gohad, District Bhind in Civil appeal No.68-A/2014 by which application filed by respondent under section 5 of Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing a civil appeal under section 96 of CPC has been allowed and the delay of approximately 15 years has been condoned.

2. The factual matrix of the case revolves in a very narrow compass, therefore, the same can be understood by narrating the facts in a tabular form:-

3. From the narration of above mentioned dates, it is clear that civil appeal was filed on 5.9.2012 alongwith an application filed under sections 5 and 14 of the Limitation Act. It was the case of applicants that since, applicants were prosecuting their cause before a wrong forum with due diligence, therefore, the time spent by applicants before different forum is liable to be excluded while calculating the period of limitation.

4. The appellate Court in paragraph 17 of the impugned order has held that the provisions of section 14 of the Limitation Act are not applicable because the respondent was prosecuting his cause before the Courts having jurisdiction. However, surprisingly the Appellate Court came to a conclusion that respondent had made out a sufficient cause for condonation of delay of 15 years.

5. Challenging the order passed by appellate Court, it is submitted by counsel for respondent that Full Bench of this Court in the case of Archana Kumar and Another v. Purendu Prakash Mukherjee and Another reported in 2000 (2) MPLJ 491 has held that not only an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC is maintainable against an ex-parte decree, but at the same time, a civil appeal under section 96 of CPC is also maintainable. Similarly, counsel for applicants has relied upon the judgment passed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Narmada Club Registered Society and Another v. P.K.Tare reported in 2006 (1) JLJ 384 = 2006 (1) MPLJ 33 and submitted that Co-ordinate Bench has held that both the remedies are simultaneous and not consecutive. Counsel for applicants has also relied upon the judgment passed by a Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Prakash S/o Shyamlal Khatik v. Uma Chaturvedi and Others reported in 2016 (1) MPLJ 222. The reliance has also been placed on the judgment passed by Kerala High Court in the case of Babu Kesavan and Others v. Prakasan reported in 2018 1 KLJ 507 {decided on 10.10.2017 in RFA No.311 of 2017 (B)}, judgment passed by Bombay High Court in the case of Amjad Ali Shafi Khan v. Abdul Hameed Abdul Gai Shaikh reported in 2019 2 MhLJ 930