High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
Case Law Search
Laddu v. Sri Mawasi & Others - WRIT - C No. - 61528 of 2007  RD-AH 18866 (14 December 2007)
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Hon. Dilip Gupta, J.
The petitioner is defendant No.1 in Original Suit No. 502 of 1987 that had been filed for eviction of the defendants and for possession. The suit was decreed ex parte on 19.7.1991. It was only on 6.5.1999 that an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the 'CPC') was filed by the petitioner defendant No.1 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 19.7.1991. The application was rejected by the order dated 26.7.2004 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Mathura. Feeling aggrieved Civil Revision No. 169 of 2004 was filed which was dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge, Court No.2, Mathura by the order dated 7.11.2007.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Courts below fell in error in rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as the delay had been sufficiently explained. This submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be accepted. The suit was decreed ex parte on 19.7.1991. Appearance on behalf of the defendants was entered by Sri Rajesh Kumar Sharma and Sri Suresh Chandra Sharma, Advocates on 24.1.1989. The Court had fixed 4.4.1989 for final hearing but as the defendants were absent, the suit was directed to proceed ex parte against them and 21.4.1989 was fixed. The order to proceed ex parte was subsequently set aside and 3.5.1989 was fixed for final hearing. Subsequently on 17.7.1990 an order was again passed to proceed ex parte since the defendants remained absent. The ex parte decree was passed on 19.7.1991. The Court below, on a consideration of the entire facts and circumstances of the case, found that sufficient cause had not been shown for condoning the enormous delay in filing the restoration application.
I have perused the orders passed by both the Courts below. No material has been placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner which may persuade the Court to take a different view. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the orders passed by the Courts below.
The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed.
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.