Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
Searching Case Laws & Precedent on Legal Query.....!
Analysing the retrieved Case Laws
Scanned Judgements…!
In cases where applications are filed beyond three years, courts have consistently held them barred by limitation, unless specific exceptions apply ["SARASA vs MALARVIZHI - Madras"], ["S.KRISHNAN vs C.LAKSHMANAN - Madras"].
Analysis and Conclusion:
Ex-parte orders can catch parties off guard, especially if they miss a hearing due to unavoidable reasons. A common question arises: Is the limitation to file a recall of ex-parte proceedings application 3 years as per Article 137? This post dives into the legal framework under the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), 1908, particularly Order IX Rule 13, and the Limitation Act, 1963. We'll explore the 3-year period, when it starts, court precedents, and practical insights. Note: This is general information; consult a lawyer for case-specific advice.
Ex-parte proceedings occur when a court hears a case in the absence of one party, often leading to an order or decree against them. Under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the affected party can apply to set aside such an ex-parte decree if they show sufficient cause for non-appearance, like lack of notice or illness.
The key challenge? Timeliness. Without a specific limitation in CPC, courts turn to the residuary provision in the Limitation Act.
Yes, generally, the limitation for filing an application to set aside ex-parte proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is three years, governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. This article applies to any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere and sets a 3-year period from when the right to apply accrues. Visalakshi VS Umapathy - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 4557
Article 137 states: any other application for which no period of limitation is prescribed provided elsewhere in this division – the period of limitation is prescribed for 3 years when the right to apply accrues. Sheik Dawood VS Lena Finance Partners, Alagappa Chettiar - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 1780
Courts have consistently applied this to Order IX Rule 13 applications, as CPC lacks an explicit timeline. Visalakshi VS Umapathy - 2014 0 Supreme(Mad) 4557
Crucially, the 3-year clock does not start from the date of the ex-parte order but from the date the applicant gains knowledge of it. This protects parties unaware due to improper service or other reasons.
This knowledge-based trigger is vital for fairness. Sunny Shimrah VS Wungmayo Muinao S/o Lt. M. Mingshivam - 2024 0 Supreme(Gau) 1123M. K. Prasad VS P. Arumugam - 2001 5 Supreme 420
Indian courts, including High Courts and the Supreme Court, have reinforced this position:
Another ruling noted: The judgment clarifies that the limitation period for recall applications is three years, starting from the date of knowledge of the ex-parte order. Kanchhu VS Prakash Chand - 2025 0 Supreme(SC) 687
These precedents ensure consistency, barring applications beyond 3 years from knowledge unless exceptional condonation applies. M. K. Prasad VS P. Arumugam - 2001 5 Supreme 420Sheik Dawood VS Lena Finance Partners - Current Civil Cases (2018)
While Article 137 dominates for CPC civil suits, nuances exist in other forums:
Tribunals under RDB Act: Limitation for setting aside ex-parte orders is strictly 30 days, as Limitation Act provisions may not fully apply. Chaparala Rajasekhar VS Icici Bank Limited - 2023 Supreme(AP) 1428 The court held: the period of limitation for filing an application to set aside an ex-parte order before the Tribunal shall be 30 days. Chaparala Rajasekhar VS Icici Bank Limited - 2023 Supreme(AP) 1428
Order IX Rule 7 CPC (Permission to Appear): No specific limitation; defendants can seek to re-enter proceedings even after delays, distinct from Rule 13. Muthammal (died) vs B.Krishnamurthy Naidu (died) - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 9985 One judgment affirmed: There is no limitation period for an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC. Muthammal (died) vs B.Krishnamurthy Naidu (died) - 2021 Supreme(Online)(MAD) 9985
Execution Petitions: Restoration under Section 151 CPC also falls under Article 137's 3 years. Karuppa Gounder VS Pongiyanna Gounder - 2020 Supreme(Mad) 1281 The period of limitation for such application would be 3 years as per Article 137. Karuppa Gounder VS Pongiyanna Gounder - 2020 Supreme(Mad) 1281
Mesne Profits or Other Applications: Some claims under Order XX Rule 12 are limited to 3 years from decree. Merla Veera Venkata Satyanarayana VS Merla Srivani - 2016 Supreme(AP) 234
Condonation of delay is possible but strict; applicants must prove no knowledge earlier and exceptional reasons. Burden lies on them. Sheik Dawood VS Lena Finance Partners, Alagappa Chettiar - 2018 Supreme(Mad) 1780
To navigate this:
If beyond time, explore alternatives like review under Order XLVII or appeals, subject to their limits.
Staying informed on limitation can prevent barred claims. For personalized guidance, reach out to a legal expert. This overview draws from established precedents but laws evolve—always check current positions.
#ExParteOrder #CPCLimitation #LimitationAct
The trial court dismissed the application mainly on the ground that under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, the petition to set aside the exparte order should have been filed within three years from the date of order and the present application filed by the petitioner after 13 years is barred by limitation ... One of the main reasons assigned by the court for dismissing the application is that the application should have been filed under Article #HL....
The respondent filed applications to recall warrant, set aside the exparte order as well as to condone the delay of 2224 days in filing the petition. The applciaiton to recall warrant was allowed. ... When he came to know about the exparte order passed against him, he filed Exts.P4 and P5 petitions on 17.06.2014 to set aside the exparte order and filed an applciation for condone the delay of 2224 days in filing the petition. ... She filed MC.9/2006 before the Judicial First Class Magis....
Umapathy, to conclude that Article 137 of the Limitation Act would apply. The same is the case in Ramadoss v. ... Therefore, in my considered opinion, an anomaly will be created, if the Courts are to conclude Article 137 or any other Article of the Limitation Act would apply to an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure. ... The above judgment is squarely applicable to the case on hand, since Article 137 of t....
For the appreciation, Article 137 is re-produced here under ? any other application for which no period of limitation is prescribed provided elsewhere in this division ? the period of limitation is prescribed for 3 years when the right to apply accrues. ... It is brought to the notice of this Court that Article 137 of Limitation Act, 1963 would be applicable in such circumstances and no application can be filed after the lapse of #H....
Therefore, under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation is prescribed as three years. ... If it is held that an application under Order 9 Rule 7 would be barred due to lapse of time be it 3 years or 30 days, it would automatically mean that an application to set aside the exparte decree that is made within time after the decree would also be barred. ... Therefore, in my considered opinion, an anomaly will be created, if the Cou....
On 22/3/2018 the final order was passed in O.A. Against the said order dtd. 22/3/2018, unnumbered petition 'Petition Diary No.1301/2023/unnumbered M.A.' was filed after almost five (5) years for setting aside. 27. ... Consequently, we hold that the period of limitation for filing an application to set aside an exparte order shall be 30 days from the time limitation period starts to run. ... The proceedings are before a statutory Tribunal. The scheme of the Act manife....
South Indian Bank, reported in 2007(3) KLT 868, wherein it was laid down that an application under Order 9 Rule 7 would be governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act and the limitation for filing such application would be three years. 14. ... Therefore, in my considered opinion, an anomaly will be created, if the Courts are to conclude Article 137 or any other Article of the Limitation Act would apply to an app....
137 of Limitation Act. ... The ground on which the order has been impugned is that issue of delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC is not relevant as the limitation is governed by Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. ... The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the applications under Order IX Rule 7 CPC are governed by Article 137 of Limitation Act, requires no discussion in view o....
(2023) 8 SCC 453 , is not in dispute that prescribed period as per section 4 of the LIMITATION ACT read with section 34(3) is 3 months only and even if such proposition is applied, it cannot be read in isolation. ... This order was challenged by the respondent before this Court by filing WP (227) No.680 of 2022 on 14.10.2022 wherein eventually on 10.11.2022, the liberty was given to the respondent to file application seeking recall of the said order and pursuant to it, the re....
In this proceeding too, notice was served on the Civil Revision Petitioner, and it had remained exparte. They raised a curious plea that as the exparte order was passed in the year 2017, the application filed after a period of three years is barred by virtue of Article 137 of the Limitation Act. ... The Court rejected the argument that the application is barred under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, referring to the judgment of th....
The period of limitation for such application would be 3 years as per Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963. Then, the Court will have the power to restore execution petition exercising its inherent powers under Section 151 of C.P.C. 7. The learned counsel also drew my attention to the judgment of Madhya Pradesh High Court in Khoobchand Jain Vs. Kashi Prasad reported in AIR 1986 Madhya Pradesh 66 wherein, it was held as follows:-
Article 137 is a residuary article prescribing period of limitation to be 3 years. 5. At the outset, an objection is raised on behalf of respondent No.1 to the maintainability of this petition on the ground that the petition is time barred considering the provisions of Article 137 under the Schedule to the Limitation Act. The title of the Article reads as: 'any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this division' and time from which period begins to run is provided from when the right to apply accrues. Also Article 136 is relevant as c....
Even if the period spent on the notice of motion from 29.3.1997 to 1.4.1998 were excluded from consideration, the petition for revocation was filed beyond the period of three years from 25.11.1994, as the three year period expired on 24.11.1997, and the revocation petition was filed on 21.7.1999. The Single Judge also held that since the letters of administration were granted in ancillary proceedings on 25.11.1994 and the petition for its revocation was filed on 21.7.1999, proceedings were time barred. The court, after excluding the period of seven months and two days spent in pursuing the r....
From the reading of the aforesaid judgment, one thing is clear. While dealing with that issue the Court, in the process also dealt with the nature of proceedings under section 31 of the Act namely whether this would be in the nature of a suit or execution of decree. The Court answered by holding that for such proceedings Article 137 of the Limitation Act would apply meaning thereby, period of limitation is 3 years. The Court was concerned with the proceedings under section 31 of the Act and the issue was as to whether limitation period would be 3 years as per Article 137 of the Lim....
The trial Court relied upon a decision, which is inapplicable to the facts of the case. The period of limitation is three years as per Article 137 of the Indian Limitation Act. The Court below ought to have seen that Order XX Rule 12 of the Code clearly debars filing of any application for determination of mesne profits beyond three years from the date of the decree. Though the application seeking appointment of a Commissioner for determination of mesne profits was filed beyond the time allowed under law, the trial Court had erroneously allowed the petition and appointed an....
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
