Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.16 seconds)Section 115 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
Gokul Dairy Farm And Ors. vs Canara Bank And Anr. on 23 July, 1996
On an application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC the trial Court allowed restoration subject to payment of cost and subject to the condition of deposit of certain amount of rent within a specific time, failing which the application would stand automatically rejected. There was no payment in terms of that order, rather a prayer for extension of time was made and in the meantime the revision application was preferred. It was held that in passing an order for setting aside the ex parte decree the Court had a right to put any condition. Reliance was also placed on another decision of this Court in the case of M/s. Gokul Dairy Farm v. Canara Bank, in Civil Revision No. 116 of 1996 decided on 23rd
July, 1996. Here was also a suit by Canara Bank against M/s. Gokul Dairy Farm and others for realisation of certain sum of money. The suit was decreed ex parte. An application under Order 9, Rule 13 was preferred and there was a direction for selling aside the ex parte decree subject to payment of Rs. 2,50,000/- within a particular period. A prayer for recall of that order was made and was disallowed. It was interpreted in this case that under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC the trial Court was empowered to set aside an ex parte decree "upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit". The application for recall that was filed by M/s. Gokul Dairy Farm was not in terms of Order 47 and no review was allowed. The Court found in this case that the direction to pay Rs. 2,50,000/- was not beyond the jurisdiction of the Court and should not be interfered with in revision. There were, however, other grounds also for the Court not to interfere.
1