9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Setting aside ex parte order and acceptance of written statement twelve years after the order was passed. Analysis: The writ application challenged the order rejecting the application for setting aside the ex parte order and acceptance of the written statement. The suit was filed in 1992, and the Defendant was set ex parte in 1993. The Defendant filed a petition in 2005 under Order 9 Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, claiming that no steps were taken earlier due to an assurance from the Plaintiff that she would withdraw her claim. The Plaintiff opposed, stating no such assurance was given, and the Defendant had delayed the application for twelve years after being set ex parte. The Defendant argued that the time limit for filing a written statement is procedural and can be extended, citing a Supreme Court decision. The Court noted that sufficient cause must be shown for setting aside an ex parte order. The Defendant's sole ground was the alleged assurance from the Plaintiff, which the Plaintiff denied. The Court found no justification for the delay in filing the application and concluded that no good or sufficient grounds were presented for setting aside the ex parte order. The Court referred to the principles of "good cause" and "sufficient cause" as explained in previous judgments. The Defendant's claim of assurance from the Plaintiff was the only basis for the application, and the Court found it unsubstantiated. The Court emphasized the lack of explanation for the twelve-year delay in filing the application and upheld the trial court's decision to dismiss the application. In conclusion, the Court found the writ application devoid of merit and dismissed it, upholding the trial court's decision to reject the application for setting aside the ex parte order and acceptance of the written statement.
|
