Dwarika Prasad (D) Thr. LRs. vs Prithvi Raj Singh

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

20 December 2024

Case No.

Civil Appeal No. 14830 of 2024

Bench

Vikram Nath, Prasanna Bhalachandra Varale

Citation

[2024] 12 S.C.R. 2075 : 2024 INSC 1030

Acts & Sections

CPC Limitation Act, 1963

Issue for consideration

Whether a separate application for condonation of delay is mandatory in cases where sufficient justification was provided while seeking restoration against ex-parte decree.

Headnote

Requirement of filing separate application for condonation of delay while seeking restoration of ex-parte decree – Not mandatory:

Held: Requiring a party to mandatorily file an application for condonation of delay u/s.5 of the Limitation Act, to seek restoration of ex-parte decree under Or.IX R.13 and Section 151 CPC, is a hyper technical view – Endorsing such a view would effectively mean ignoring the purpose of judicial procedure – The procedure cannot stand in the way of achieving just and fair outcome. [Para 12] A Party cannot suffer due to negligent or fault committed by the Counsel:

Held: In the present case, the Appellant was not made aware of the ex-parte decree by his previous counsel – It is only after the appointment of the new counsel, the appellant got to know about the ex- parte decree – A party cannot suffer due to negligent or fault committed by their counsel. [Paras 9, 10]

Judgment Vikram Nath, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. This appeal assails the final judgement and order passed by Allahabad High Court in Writ Petition No.18990/2024 on 24.05.2022 whereby the High Court dismissed the Writ Petition and upheld the order of the District Judge, Etah in Civil Revision No.53 of 2000. The District Court, Etah (“Revisional Court”) had allowed the Civil Revision filed by Respondent Prithvi Raj Singh under section 115 of Civil Procedure Code (“CPC”) against the order dated 29.04.2000 passed by Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division) Kasganj (“Trial Court”) in Civil Miscella

View Subscription Plans →