AI Overview...
- Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Order - Rejection of Application: Multiple cases (e.g., Rohit Bahadur Singh VS Raghunath Mishra - Orissa, Kanchan Devi VS Kesara - Rajasthan, D. Dhanalakshmi VS N. P. Balaraja Naidu - Andhra Pradesh, AMAL GUHA VS STATE - Calcutta, SUBHASH KUMAR VS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Delhi, Hajari Singh VS Laxman Singh - Rajasthan) confirm that courts have rejected applications to set aside ex parte orders primarily due to reasons such as delay, absence of diligent steps, or procedural lapses. For instance, Rohit Bahadur Singh VS Raghunath Mishra - Orissa and Kanchan Devi VS Kesara - Rajasthan highlight rejection due to negligence or absence of legal representation, while D. Dhanalakshmi VS N. P. Balaraja Naidu - Andhra Pradesh emphasizes rejection based on filing after limitation period.
- Grounds for Rejection - Delay and Viligance: Courts consistently stress that delay in filing applications and lack of vigilance by defendants (e.g., SUBHASH KUMAR VS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Delhi, Hajari Singh VS Laxman Singh - Rajasthan) are valid grounds for rejecting applications to set aside ex parte orders. The importance of timely action and proper representation is emphasized across multiple judgments.
- Cost and Fair Opportunity: In some cases (e.g., Kanchan Devi VS Kesara - Rajasthan), courts have set aside ex parte orders on cost or procedural grounds, especially where the petitioner lacked legal knowledge or was from a rural area, indicating some flexibility in procedural fairness.
- Procedural Compliance and Limitation: Rejections often hinge on procedural compliance, including adherence to limitation periods (e.g., D. Dhanalakshmi VS N. P. Balaraja Naidu - Andhra Pradesh) and the timely filing of applications under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC.
- Analysis and Conclusion: Courts generally uphold the rejection of applications to set aside ex parte orders when filed late, without reasonable cause, or due to lack of vigilance. The primary focus remains on procedural strictness, timely action, and the respondent's diligence. Exceptions exist where courts consider fairness, costs, or circumstances like lack of legal knowledge, but these are less common.
References:
- Rohit Bahadur Singh VS Raghunath Mishra - Orissa, Kanchan Devi VS Kesara - Rajasthan, D. Dhanalakshmi VS N. P. Balaraja Naidu - Andhra Pradesh, AMAL GUHA VS STATE - Calcutta, SUBHASH KUMAR VS DELHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY - Delhi, Hajari Singh VS Laxman Singh - Rajasthan, Abhimanyu Dass Jain (Dead) through L. Rs. VS Board of Revenue - Supreme Court, BANK OF BARODA VS SARDAR AWINDER SINGH - Allahabad, Kali Ram VS Akthar Jahan - Allahabad
Search Results for "Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Order Rejected"
2017 0 Supreme(Ori) 367 • India - Orissa
A.K.RATH
CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, 1908 - Order 9 Rule 7 - Application to set aside the ex-parte order rejected - Order challenged - Whether application ... - Held, Trial Court justified in rejecting the application. (Paras - 3 to 6). ... No. 4/2004/33/2011, whereby and whereunder the learned trial court rejected the application of defendant no.2 under Order 9 Rule 7....
2011 0 Supreme(Raj) 944 • India - Rajasthan
KARAN SINGH RATHORE
set-aside the ex-parte order, rejected — Petitioner is from rural area having no legal knowledge — Held — For the negligence committed ... C.P.C., Order 9 Rule 7 — Ex-parte Order — Ex-parte order passed due to absence of the advocate and the defendant — Application to ... by advocate — Order set aside on cost of Rs. 1500/-.
2023 0 Supreme(AP) 1374 • India - Andhra Pradesh
RAVI NATH TILHARI
The 3rd defendant failed to appear in the suit, and her application to set aside the ex parte order was rejected by the court due ... The court held that the application to set aside the ex parte order was rightly rejected as it was filed after the limitation period ... The court also held that the application to set aside the....
1988 0 Supreme(Cal) 258 • India - Calcutta
J.N.HORE, A.K.SENGUPTA
The petitioner's application to set aside the ex parte order was rejected by the Magistrate on the grounds of timing and lack of ... to set aside the ex parte order. ... Final Decision: The revisional application was rejected and the Rule was discharged. ... The application under S. 126 (2) having been filed long after three months from the date of the ex #HL_....
2013 Supreme(Online)(KER) 37387 • India - High Court of Kerala
T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR, A.V.RAMAKRISHNA PILLAI, JJ
Her application to set aside the ex parte order was rejected by both the Rent Control Court and Appellate Authority. ... Issues: Whether the lower courts erred in rejecting the petitioner's application to set aside the ex parte order based on ... ex parte. ... The petitioner was set ex parte and an ex parte order#HL....
2001 0 Supreme(All) 365 • India - Allahabad
O.P.GARG
( 5 ) SRI Avinash Swarup, learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes that the petitioner shall not take unwarranted adjournments and shall co-operate in the final disposal of the suit within a period of 45 days from the date a certified copy of this order
2009 0 Supreme(SC) 1920 • India - Supreme Court
B.N.AGRAWAL, G.S.SINGHVI
by ex-parte order- Application to set aside the same rejected- Revisions before the Additional Commissioner, also dismissed- Writ ... the appellants sought an opportunity of hearing- However, without considering the application, the order of cancellation passed ... of cancellation of allotment of plot set aside- Matter remanded to the Additional Collector (Finance), to decide the matter afresh ... When the appellan....
1999 0 Supreme(All) 1743 • India - Allahabad
YATINDRA SINGH
The petitioner filed an application to set aside the ex parte order, which was rejected by the Prescribed Authority and the appeal ... Issues: The issues revolved around the rejection of the petitioner's application to set aside the ex parte order and the subsequent ... was also rejected. ... This application was rejected by the Prescribed Aut....
1999 0 Supreme(Del) 231 • India - Delhi
M.K.SHARMA
for delay — Defendant not vigilant for taking any steps for getting the ex parte order set aside — Application, rejected. ... Civil Procedure Code, 1908 - Order 9 Rule 7 — Ex parte order — Setting aside — Delay in filing of application — No reasonable Explanationn ... The defendant is apparently not vigilant nor did it take any steps for getting the order for proceeding the suit ....
2008 0 Supreme(Raj) 2229 • India - Rajasthan
NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN
He later filed an application to set aside the ex-parte order, which was rejected by the trial court. ... Issues: Non-appearance of defendant, delay in filing application to set aside ex-parte order, applicability of Section 5 of ... Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the period of limitation prescribed for application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was not ... T....
Filter by Legal Phrase
