9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Interpretation of art. 164 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908, Application to set aside ex-parte decree in Suit No. 25 of 1958, Knowledge of the decree for setting aside, Limitation period for setting aside a decree, Sufficiency of knowledge of the decree under art. 164
In this judgment, the Supreme Court addressed the interpretation of art. 164 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908, specifically in the context of setting aside an ex-parte decree. The appellant had two suits against them - one for a mortgage and the other for a ruqqa. An application was filed to set aside the ex-parte decree in the ruqqa suit, which was granted by the First Civil Judge, Kanpur, with certain conditions. However, an appeal against this order was dismissed. Subsequently, the appellant filed an application to set aside the ex-parte decree in the mortgage suit, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge and the High Court, citing that the application was barred by Limitation under art. 164. The Court explained that under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC, a decree passed ex-parte can be set aside if the summons was not duly served or if the defendant had a sufficient cause for not appearing. The period of limitation for such an application is 30 days from the date of the decree or from when the defendant had knowledge of the decree. The burden of proof is on the defendant to show the application is within time and that they had knowledge of the decree within 30 days. The Court referred to precedents to clarify that "knowledge of the decree" means knowledge of the specific decree sought to be set aside, not just any decree. The sufficiency of knowledge is based on what it meant to the defendant considering their previous dealings and circumstances known to them. In this case, the appellant's claim of first learning about the decree on a later date was found to be false, as evidence showed they were personally informed by the Civil Judge earlier. The Court concluded that the application filed by the appellant was time-barred under art. 164 and upheld the lower courts' decisions, dismissing the appeal with costs. Overall, the judgment provides a detailed analysis of the interpretation of art. 164 of the Indian Limitation Act 1908 in the context of setting aside an ex-parte decree, emphasizing the importance of the defendant's knowledge of the specific decree being sought to be set aside within the prescribed limitation period. The Court highlighted the burden of proof on the defendant to establish timely application and clear knowledge of the decree, as well as the sufficiency of information conveyed to impute such knowledge. The decision underscores the significance of factual circumstances and previous dealings between the parties in determining the sufficiency of knowledge for the purpose of setting aside a decree under art. 164.
|
