Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13 -- Condonation of delay - Ex parte preliminary decree - Suit for recovery of money - Preliminary decree passed after defendants have cross-examined PWs 1 & 2 at length - It cannot be said that it is an ex parte decree - Defendants failed to adduce evidence in spite of sufficient time being..........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 151, Order 9, Rule 9, Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 -- Restoration of suit dismissed in default - Plaintiff suffered an order of dismissal, as his counsel has noted wrong date of hearing in his diary - Litigant cannot be made to suffer on account of negligence or lapse on the part of his advocate - Sufficient cause shown by plaintiff..........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13, Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 -- Ex parte divorce decree - Setting aside - Endorsement of refusal - Amin or postal authorities not examined to prove that wife had refused to receive notice - Wife stated that she came to know about the proceedings only through reply can be reasonably considered in her favour - Even,..........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13, Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 -- Ex parte decree - Setting aside - Condonation of delay - Delay of 1026 days - Suit for specific performance - Liberal view has to be taken in the matter of condonation of absence of a party especially in a suit for specific performance unless negligence is so grave to the extent of outweighing..........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13, Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 -- Ex parte decree - Setting aside - Condonation of delay - Delay of 401 days - Defendant was aged about 73 years and suffered from jaundice - Reasoning put forth by defendant is within contour of definition "sufficient cause" - However, due to delay, plaintiffs would have definitely suffered..........
Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13, Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5 -- Ex parte divorce decree - Setting aside - Condonation of delay - Wife was duly served in the proceedings - She was thus, aware of filing of divorce petition - Wife was negligent and not interested in pursuing the proceedings - Even, the present appeal is filed belatedly after delay of 136 days..........
Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13 -- Condonation of delay - Delay of 908 days in filing appeal - Defendants have not chosen to cross-examine PW1 and matter was pending for several years - They were set ex parte and application filed for setting aside ex parte decree is also dismissed - Defendants have only intended to drag on..........
Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13 -- Condonation of delay - Delay of 1321 days in filing application for setting aside ex parte decree - Husband of defendant was following the suit on behalf of defendant - Defendant did not meet her counsel to give instructions for filing written statement - No material on record that there is..........
Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Section 96 -- Condonation of delay - Delay in filing appeal against ex parte decree - Ex parte decree though passed on 21.12.2021 and defendant received notice of same on 21.7.2022 - Consequently, appeal was filed with delay - Valid reasons have been assigned - Delay in filing appeal condoned...........
Limitation Act, 1963, Section 5, Civil Procedure Code, 1908, Order 9, Rule 13 -- Condonation of delay - Delay of 424 days in filing application for setting aside ex parte decree - Defendant failed to explain delay by establishing sufficient cause within the meaning of S.5 of Limitation Act - Application for condonation of delay rightly dismissed...........
