Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment discussing the remedies under Order IX Rule 13 and Section 96 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908.   
• This judgment was delivered by a 2-judge bench comprising of Justice R Subhash Reddy and Justice R. Bhanumathi. 

Facts  

• Respondents No.1 to 13 filed Regular Civil Suit for partition and separate possession of the suit property. 
• The summons for the suit were served on Tanaji, son of Defendant No.2. However, the defendants claimed they were in a neighboring village and were unaware of the summons. 
• The suit was decreed ex parte on 04th July 2008. 
• On 15^th October 2008, the defendants filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree, which was dismissed by the trial court on 06th August 2010. 
• The Trial court found that summons served on Tanaji were valid and dismissed the application due to inconsistencies in the defendants' explanations for their absence. 
• The defendants appealed the dismissal under Order IX Rule 13 CPC but later withdrew the appeal on 11th June 2013. 
• On 12^th June 2013 the defendants filed a regular appeal challenging the ex parte decree, along with an application for condonation of a delay of 4 years, 10 months, and 8 days. 
• The Additional District Judge allowed the condonation of delay, reasoning that the defendants were pursuing the wrong remedy and had not been given an opportunity to contest the case on merits. 
• Respondents No.1 to 8 challenged this order in the High Court, which, on 20th August 2014, allowed their writ petition and refused to condone the delay, holding that remedies under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and Section 96(2) CPC must be pursued simultaneously, not consecutively. 
• Hence, the matter is before the Supreme Court.

Issue Involved

• Whether the time spent pursuing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC can constitute “sufficient cause” under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act for condoning the delay in filing a regular appeal under Section 96(2) CPC? 
• Whether dismissal of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC bars the defendant from filing a regular appeal under Section 96(2) CPC?  

Observations 

• The Supreme Court observed that the remedies under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and Section 96(2) CPC are distinct. While the former examines the sufficiency of reasons for non-appearance, the latter allows the appellate court to review the merits of the case. 
• Filing an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC does not preclude the defendant from filing a regular appeal under Section 96(2) CPC, even if the former is dismissed. 
• The High Court erred in rigidly applying the rule that remedies under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and Section 96(2) CPC must be pursued simultaneously. 
• The time spent pursuing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was held to constitute “sufficient cause” for condoning the delay, as the defendants were not grossly negligent and were acting in good faith. 
• The Supreme Court emphasized that a liberal interpretation of “sufficient cause” is necessary to advance justice, particularly in cases involving property rights. 
• The judgment of the High Court was set aside, and the appeal was allowed, granting the defendants the opportunity to challenge the ex parte decree on merits. 

Conclusion 

• This is the landmark judgment of the Supreme Court which discusses the remedies under Order IX Rule 13 and Section 96 of CPC. 
• The Supreme Court in this case held that the time spent in pursuing application under Order IX Rule 13 will constitute a sufficient cause for condoning delay.

[Original Judgment]