Supreme Court Clarifies No Need for Separate Delay Condonation Application to Set Aside Ex-Parte Decree

DWARIKA PRASAD (D) THR. LRs. VERSUS PRITHVI RAJ SINGH, 2024 INSC 1030

In a significant ruling, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that a separate application for condonation of delay is not mandatory when filing an application to set aside an ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), provided the application for restoration sufficiently explains the delay.

The bench, comprising Justices Vikram Nath and Prasanna B. Varale, was hearing an appeal challenging the decision of the Allahabad High Court. The High Court had upheld the First Appellate Court's ruling, which reversed the trial court’s order allowing the appellant-defendant’s restoration application. The First Appellate Court had relied on the fact that no separate application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was filed alongside the Order IX Rule 13 application.

The case involved a civil suit where an ex-parte decree was passed declaring a sale deed null and void due to fraud. The defendant filed a restoration application five months after the decree was passed, citing his unawareness of the proceedings due to reliance on his previous counsel, who failed to inform him about the ongoing case.

The respondent-plaintiff argued that the restoration application was filed beyond the statutory 30-day period and could not be entertained without a separate delay condonation application. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, however, disagreed with this view. It noted that Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC allows the restoration of an ex-parte decree if a valid explanation for the delay is provided, even if the application is made after the prescribed period. The Court further emphasized that the restoration application already included sufficient grounds for delay condonation, including the appellant’s lack of knowledge about the decree.

Drawing upon the case of Bhagmal and Ors v. Kunwar Lal (2010), the Court stated that when the restoration application itself provides the necessary explanation for the delay, no separate application for delay condonation is required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The Court criticized the Hon’ble High Court's narrow interpretation of the law, asserting that procedural rules are designed to facilitate justice, not obstruct it.

In conclusion, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled in favor of the appellant, allowing the appeal and clarifying that the requirement for a separate delay condonation application is not mandatory in cases where the restoration application already contains a sufficient explanation for the delay. This decision underscores the Court's commitment to ensuring justice is not delayed due to procedural technicalities.