Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 4 of 4 (0.16 seconds)Section 96 in The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 [Entire Act]
M/S. Neerja Realtors Pvt. Ltd. vs Janglu (Dead) Thr. Lr on 29 January, 2018
13. Since in the present case, the learned court below was
8
dealing with an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and the said
court specifically recorded the reason for taking recourse of the
substituted means of service on the ground that the petitioner was
avoiding the service of summons, the ratio laid down in the case of
"Neerja Realtors Private Limited" (supra) will not be applicable
in the facts and circumstances of this case.
G.P. Srivastava vs Shri R.K. Raizada & Ors on 3 March, 2000
7. On plain reading of the provisions of Order IX Rule 13
CPC, it would appear that an ex-parte decree can be set aside if the
defendant against whom ex-parte decree has been passed files an
application and satisfies the court that the summons were not duly
served to him or he was prevented by sufficient cause from
appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. As per second
proviso to Order IX Rule 13 CPC, a decree cannot be set aside merely
on the ground that there has been irregularity in the service of
summons if the defendant had notice of the date of hearing and had
sufficient time to appear in court. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the
case of "G.P Srivastava Vs. R.K Raizada & Ors." reported in
(2000) 3 SCC 54 has held that an ex-parte decree passed against a
defendant under Order IX Rule 13 CPC can be set aside upon
satisfaction of the court that either the summons were not duly
served upon the defendant or he was prevented by any 'sufficient
cause' from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing.
Unless 'sufficient cause' is shown for non-appearance of the
defendant in the case on the date of hearing, the court has no power
to set aside an ex-parte decree.
1