9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
The judgment involves issues related to delay in filing an appeal, setting aside an ex-parte decree, and the application of the Limitation Act. Delay in filing appeal: The appeal was filed against a judgment dismissing the appellants' appeal from a previous suit due to a delay of 10 months. The High Court refused to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. Setting aside ex-parte decree: The appellants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside an ex-parte decree passed in a suit for non-supply of the agreed quantity of 'made tea'. The application was dismissed for not satisfactorily explaining the delay in filing. The High Court also dismissed a civil revision application against this decision. Application of Limitation Act: The appellants argued that the suit filed in 1989 was barred by limitation as the last advance was made in 1985. The Supreme Court emphasized that a court cannot pass a decree if a suit is found to be barred by limitation u/s 3 of the Limitation Act. The Supreme Court found that the ex-parte decree suffered from non-application of mind by the Trial Judge. The Judge should have considered whether the suit was barred by limitation before passing the decree. The Court held that the High Court should have condoned the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, the Supreme Court set aside the ex-parte decree dated 19.4.1990. The appellants were directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lakh before the Executing Court, in addition to the previously deposited amount. They were also ordered to pay Rs. 25,000 to the respondent as costs. The respondent could withdraw the deposited sum upon furnishing security. The appellants were given six weeks to file written statements before the Trial Court, which was instructed to consider disposing of the suit within three months from the date of the Supreme Court's order.
|
