Back
DEVAN M. DESAI
Rathva Meenaben Pahadsinh – Appellant
Versus
Solanki Karansinh Gemalsinh – Respondent
JUDGMENT (ORAL)
The present petition is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, 1950 by the petitioners-original plaintiffs-appellants. The petitioners have prayed for following prayers:—
“A. This Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to admit and allow the present petition;
B. This Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to quash and set aside the order dated 30/06/2022 in Misc. Civil Appeal no. 05 of 2021, passed by the Learned Additional District Judge, Chhotaudepur at Bodeli (At Annexure-A), and consequentially be pleased to set aside the order dated 22/09/2021 in Civil Misc. Application no. 16 of 2019, passed by the Learned Principal Senior Civil Judge, Bodeli (At Annexure-D), by allowing the prayers sought therein to condone the delay in preferring the application for setting aside the order of dismissal dated 14/11/2017 in Regular Civil Suit no. 227 of 2016 (At Annexure-C), in the Interest of justice;
C. This Hon’ble High Court may be pleased to pass such and further orders as the nature and circumstances of the case may require, in the interest of justice.”
2. Heard learned advocate Mr. A.V Nair appearing for the petitioners and learned advocate Mr. Dhruv
Order passed under Rule 13 of Order 9 of CPC rejecting application for an order to set aside a decree passed ex parte, appeal would lie under Order XLIII Rule 1 (d) of CPC.
The court upheld the condonation of delay in filing an appeal, emphasizing a liberal approach in light of the COVID-19 pandemic and prior court directions.
The court emphasized the need for substantial justice, the wide discretionary powers under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, and the balance of convenience between the parties.
The court reaffirmed that substituted service under the Code of Civil Procedure does not constitute adequate service, necessitating substantiation of claims in applications for condonation of delay.
An application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC requires compelling reasons for absence; mere negligence does not justify setting aside an ex-parte decree.
The court emphasized that applications for condonation of delay should be decided on merits, prioritizing substantial justice over technicalities, especially when the delay is not due to negligence.
Point of Law - It is axiomatic that condonation of delay is a matter of discretion of court Section 5 of Limitation Act does not say that such discretion can be exercised only if the delay is within ....
Condonation of delay in filing application for restoration of Civil Suit – Delay to be condoned in interest of justice provided that applicant satisfies court that he had sufficient cause for not pre....
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
