The judgment emphasizes the necessity of adhering to procedural requirements before setting aside an ex-parte order, ensuring fair notification and opportunity for litigants.

JUDGMENT

(Dated this the 13^rd day of November, 2025)

This petition is filed by the petitioner/plaintiff for setting aside the orders dated 08.02.2024 passed by the Munsiff Magistrate, Mannarkkad in I.A.No.1104/2023 & IA No.1105/2023 in O.S.No.209/2021 filed by the respondents for condonation of delay and for setting aside the ex-parte judgment.

2. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is that the petitioner filed a suit against the respondents, O.S.No.209/2021. A summons has been served on the defendants but placed ex- parte. Accordingly, the trial court decreed the suit of the plaintiff on 23.08.2023. Subsequent to the passing of decree, the defendants, after the appealable period, filed application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 18 days and another application filed under Order 9 Rule

13 of Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) for setting aside the ex-parte judgment. Though, notice was issued to the plaintiff, it was not served, but a paper publication was taken, to be appeared by the plaintiff on 03.02.2024. When the plaintiff appeared through counsel on 03.02.2024, there was no sitting for the Court, the case was notified to 04.04.2024 and subsequently the defendants counsel filed advance application on 07.02.2024 and the trial court allowed the applications on 08.02.2024 by setting as ex-parte and condoned the delay of 18 days which are under challenge.

4. The learned counsel for the petitioner contended when the case was posted for hearing on 03.02.2024 when there was no sitting it was adjourned to 04.04.2024. But in the meanwhile, without notice the respondent advanced the case on 07.02.2024 while the matter was posted on 08.02.2024 without issuing notice to the plaintiff, the exparte decree was set aside which is not correct. Hence, prayed for setting aside the same.

5. Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents supported the order passed by the trial court.

6. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, where a decree was obtained by the petitioner on 23.08.2023, but the respondents filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, the matter was taken up and heard on 08.02.2024, which was not notified to the petitioner. Therefore there is a violation of the provisions of Order 9 Rule 14 of CPC. A notice was earlier issued to the petitioner to appear on 03.02.2024, but because of the non - sitting of the Presiding Officer, the matter was adjourned to 04.04.2024. Therefore, once the respondent advanced the matter on 07.02.2024 it was taken to the court on 08.02.2024 without notifying to the petitioner. But, the trial court ought to have notified the same to the plaintiff.

7. That apart, even upon perusal of the order under challenge, the trial court has not provided any reason for being satisfied with the application wiled by the respondents/defendants. Even for the sake of satisfaction, the trial court ought to have make a formal inquiry for the purpose of setting aside the ex-parte decree, otherwise, the defendants may take advantage of their non- appearance by filing an application to set aside the ex-parte decree passed by the Court in a routine manner, which is not permissible.

8. On perusal of the order under challenge, absolutely there is no reason assigned by the trial court for having satisfied with the affidavit or cause shown by the defendants for setting aside the ex-parte judgment. As per Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, the defendants supposed to give a satisfactory explanation, what made him not to appear before the Court when summons was served on him. If no notice served, he has