9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Setting aside of an ex parte decree. 2. Competency of the person filing the application. 3. Filing the application within the limitation period. Analysis: 1. The petitioner, Food Corporation of India, sought to set aside an ex parte decree passed against it on April 9, 1973. The Corporation applied for setting aside the decree on February 2, 1974, after becoming aware of it on January 3, 1974, upon receiving execution summons. The trial Court framed three issues, deciding in favor of the Corporation on issue No. 1 but against it on issues 2 and 3, leading to the dismissal of the application. Subsequent appeals were also unsuccessful, resulting in the current Revision petition. 2. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the competence of the Revision petition due to the absence of jurisdictional objections in the lower courts. Referring to Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was argued that the High Court should not reverse orders unless there is a risk of failure of justice or irreparable harm. Both lower courts had concurred on crucial issues 2 and 3, ruling that the application was not filed by a competent person and was time-barred. The objection was upheld as no valid response was presented by the petitioner. 3. Concerning the competency of the District Manager of the Food Corporation to represent the Corporation, reference was made to Order XXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was noted that while the rule allows for signing and verifying pleadings by certain officers, it does not grant them the authority to conduct the case. The courts correctly ruled against the petitioner on issue No. 2 based on this interpretation. 4. On the issue of limitation, the argument that the Corporation learned of the proceedings only on January 3, 1974, lacked evidentiary support. The courts found the Corporation failed to provide substantial evidence to support this claim, leading to the rejection of the argument. Consequently, issue No. 3 was rightly decided against the petitioner by the lower courts. 5. With no irregularities or lack of jurisdiction alleged in the lower courts, the Revision petition was deemed meritless and dismissed without costs. The judgment upheld the decisions of the trial Court and Senior Subordinate Judge, emphasizing the lack of evidence and legal grounds for setting aside the ex parte decree.
|
