Mere Presence at the Scene Is Insufficient to Prove Common Intention Under Section 34 IPC: Kerala High Court Acquits Two Co-Accused in Murder Case Execution of Will Must Satisfy Legal Mandates; Suspicious Circumstances Cannot Be Ignored: Chhattisgarh High Court Anticipatory Bail Barred Under SC/ST Act: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Petitions Citing Section 14A Jurisdictional Restrictions Section 143A Imposes a Substantive Obligation and Cannot be Applied Retrospectively: Rajasthan High Court Unregistered Sale Agreements Cannot Be Basis for Specific Performance or Injunction: Madras High Court Upholds First Appellate Court’s Decision” Denial of Subsistence Allowance During Suspension Violates Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution: Punjab and Haryana High Court Framing of Charges Requires Prima Facie Evidence, Not Mere Suspicion: Kerala High Court Discharges Bank Customer in Fraud Case Voluntary Confessions of Co-Accused Cannot Sustain Prosecution: Karnataka High Court Quashes NDPS Case Against Accused Magistrate Cannot Take Cognizance Under MMDR Act Without Complaint by Authorized Officer: Gujarat High Court Quashes FIR in Illegal Mining Case NDPS | Bail is the Rule, Jail is the Exception: Himachal Pradesh High Court Delhi High Court Reduces Compensation in Motor Accident Case: Functional Disability Reassessed Public Interest and Commercial Morality Must Guide Stay of Winding-Up Proceedings Under Section 466 of the Companies Act: Bombay High Court Non-Compliance with Section 82 Cr.P.C. Renders Proclamation Proceedings Null and Void: P&H High Court Delhi High Court Declines Mandamus to Speaker for Special Assembly Session to Table CAG Reports Doctors Cannot Be Expected to Investigate Victim's Age in the Absence of Prima Facie Doubt: Kerala High Court Quashes Criminal Proceedings Bombay HC Grants Bail to Drunk Driving Accused; Orders Public Awareness Campaign as a Condition Burden of Proof in Declaratory Suits Lies Squarely on the Plaintiffs: Andhra Pradesh High Court Dismisses Second Appeal in Church Property Dispute Rajasthan High Court Puts Mass Transfer Orders of Panchayat Officials on Hold Physical Disabilities Cannot Be Ignored Based on Employment Continuity: Kerala High Court Awards ₹9.62 Lakh to Teacher Suffering Permanent Disability Local Commissioner Appointment is Not a Right, But a Discretionary Power of the Court: P&H HC Allegations of Fraud Insufficient to Bar Arbitration in Trademark Dispute: Madras High Court Section 138 N.I. Act | Failure to Prove Legally Enforceable Debt Leads to Acquittal in Cheque Dishonour Case: Karnataka High Court

Defendant Refused to Receive Summons Not Entitled To Seek Setting Aside Of Ex-Parte Decree U/O 9 R.13 - SC

07 May 2024 8:19 AM

By: Admin


An ex-parte decree has been passed in favour of Respondent No.2 in the sum of Rs.22,400 along with interest @ 9%. The Suit was filed on 25.05.1993 and the summons sent to Respondent No.1 by registered post was received back with postal endorsement of 'refusal’. Property was put to auction on 16.12.2000 and the present appellant was the highest bidder with a bid of Rs.1,25,000/-. In accordance with the prescribed procedure, 1/4th of the amount was deposited by the appellant. Respondent No.1 appeared before the court and filed an application praying that the ex-parte decree dated 16.09.1997 be set aside. On 19.12.2000 Respondent No.1, for the first time, appeared before the court and filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of Code of Civil Procedure (‘the Code’, for short) praying that the ex-parte decree dated 16.09.1997 be set aside.  The application was dismissed on 05.07.2005 by the Additional District Judge, Mainpuri with following observation that the application was filed after more than 8 months from the knowledge about the pendency of the execution proceedings, indicates that in spite of having specific knowledge of the same he has filed this application after the period of limitation and the reason shown in applications is totally false, frivolous and baseless. Respondent no.1 filed appeal to High Court during the pendency, sale certificate was issued in favour of the Appellant on 30.03.2006 by virtue of order passed by the concerned court in Execution No.4 of 1998. In meantime High Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree. Allowed appeal. Appellant, who is having sale certificate, approached the High Court against this order but same was dismissed .  Appellant challenged both orders in Supreme Court. Apex court observed that Section 27 of General Clause Act gives rise to a presumption that service of notice has to be effected when it is sent to the correct address by registered post. Service of notice is deemed to have been effected at the time at which the letter would have been delivered in the ordinary course of business. The High Court rightly observed in its order dated 21.04.2006 that Respondent No.1 was not vigilant. It was only after the auction was so undertaken, that he preferred the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code. Yet, the High Court proceeded to grant relief in favour of Respondent no.1, not entitled to relief. Appeal Allowed. 

September 29, 2021. 

VISHWABANDHU   Versus  SRI KRISHNA AND ANR.

 

Similar News