Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

10. The only contention raised by Mr.P. Mani, who is the learned counsel appearing for the revision petitioner/D1, is that no period of limitation has been prescribed under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte order and therefore, Article 137 of the Limitation Act would not be made applicable.

11. On the other hand, Mr.R.Sunil Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the 10th respondent has adverted to that since no limitation has been prescribed under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C., Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 being the residuary provision would be very well made applicable and therefore, if the revision petitioner/D1 wanted to file an application to set aside the ex parte order, dated 5.6.2009, he ought to have filed that application on or before 5.6.2012 on which date the period of three years expire. But the revision petitioner/D1 has filed the said application only on 17.6.2013 that too after the lapse of four years and therefore, the application is squarely barred by limitation as contemplated under Article 137 of the Limitation Act and hence, he has urged that the revision petitioner has no competency as the impugned order is within the bounds of Article 137 of the Limitation Act.

b. Vikas Dedeech vs. Richhook Garments (P) Ltd., (Unreported judgment passed by the Delhi High Court, which was decided on 15.2.2013 in C.R.P.No.33 of 2013). c. V. Daniel and others vs. Annamma (MANU/KE/0205/2012). 14. Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 envisages that any other application for which no period of limitation is provided elsewhere in this division, three years of limitation is prescribed and the period of limitation starts from the date when the right to apply accrues. 15. It is the settled proposition that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 will apply to any petition or application filed under any Act to a civil court. It is not confined to applications contemplated by or under the Code of Civil Procedure.

28. The ratio applied by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Rajaji's case, has also been applied in C.L Cleetus vs. South Indian Bank Ltd. and another (AIR 2007 Kerala 301), wherein the Kerala High Court has observed that, It is true that there is distinction between applications which are filed under Order 9 Rule 13 and those filed under Order 9 Rule 7, in that while the former seeks cancellation of decree finally disposing of suits, the latter seeks cancellation of only orders setting the applicant ex parte, thus preventing him from participating in further proceedings in the suit. It is also true that unlike the applications under Order 9 Rule 13 there is no article in the Limitation Act providing any specific period of limitation for applications under Order 9 Rule 7. Such applications will be governed by Article 137, the residuary article which prescribes a period of three years.

33. Admittedly, for filing the application under Order 9, Rule 7 C.P.C., no limitation is prescribed. It does not mean that an application under Order 9, Rule 7 C.P.C., to set aside the ex parte order can be filed at any point of time, i.e., even after several years as has been done in the present case on hand.

34. Since no limitation is prescribed under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C., like that of Order 9 Rule 13 as observed in Rajaji's case as well as in Vikas Dedeech's case (Delhi High Court), the provisions under Article 137 being residuary provision alone would be made applicable and therefore, under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, the period of limitation is prescribed as three years and since the application in I.A.No.87 of 2013 has been filed after the period of three years, it is squarely barred by limitation under Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as rightly concluded by the learned trial Judge, which according to this Court, does not require any interference and therefore, the revision petition deserves to be dismissed.