LexM/S. GMG ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES & ORS. versus M/S ISSA GREEN POWER SOLUTION & ORS.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 6 S.C.R. 1108 A MIS. GMG ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES & ORS. v. MIS ISSA GREEN POWER SOLUTION & ORS. B (Civil Appeal No. 4472 of 2015) MAY 15, 2015 [T. S. THAKUR AND R. BANUMATHI, JJ.) Delay - Condonation of - Applications filed u/Or. 9 r c 13 to set aside the ex-parte decrees alongwith the applications to condone the delay of 355 days and 382 days respectively - Applications allowed imposing condition on the appellants to deposit the entire decreetal amount- High Court upholding the order - On appeal, held: Trial court D should not have imposed unreasonable and onerous condition of depositing the entire suit claim in the suits when the issues are yet to be decided on merits - In revision, High Court should have kept in view that the parties were yet to go for trial and appellants ought to have been afforded the E opportunity to contest the suits on merits - Since the reasons for the delay was satisfactorily explained, impugned order set aside - Delay in filing applications to set aside ex-parte decrees condoned and ex-parte decrees set aside - Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 - Or. 9 r 13. F Allowing the appeals, the Court HELD: 1.1 The expression 'sufficient cause' is to receive liberal construction so as to advance substantial G justice. When there is no negligence, inaction or want of bona fide is imputable to the appellants, the delay has to be condoned. The discretion is to be exercised like any other judicial discretion with vigilance and circumspection. The discretion is not to be exercised in H any arbitrary, vague or fanciful manner. The true test is 1108 MIS. GMG ENGINEERING INDUSTRIES v. MIS ISSA 1109 GREEN POWER SOLUTION to see whether the applicant has acted with due A diligence. [Para 8] [1113-F-G] 1.2 In the instant case, while the trial court exercised the discretion to condone the delay in filing the applications to set aside the ex-parte decrees, the B trial court should not have imposed such an unreasonable and onerous condition of depositing the entire suit claim of Rs.1,50,00,0001- and Rs.10,00,0001- respectively in the suits when the issues are yet to be decided on merits. While considering the revision, the C High Court should have kept in view that the parties are yet to go for trial and the appellants ought to have been afforded the opportunity to contest the suits on merits. When the S.L.Ps came up for admission, this Court passed the conditional order that subject to deposit a D sum of Rs.50,00,0001-before the trial court, notice would be issued to the respondents. In compliance with the said order, the appellants deposited Rs.50,00,0001- before the trial court. Since the appellants have satisfactorily explained the reasons for the delay and E with a view to provide an opportunity to the appellants to contest the suit, the impugned order is set aside. Delay in filing the applications to set aside the ex-parte decrees is condoned and the ex-pa rte decrees are set aside and F the suits are restored to file. [Paras 11 and 12] [1115-E- • H; 1116-A, CJ V.K. Industries and Ors. vs. M.P Electricity Board, Rampur, Jabalpur (2002) 3 SCC 159; Tea Auction Limited vs. Grace Hill Tea Industry And Anr. 2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 163: (2006) 12 sec 104: (2006) 9 SCALE 223; Vijay Kumar Madan and Ors. vs. R.N. Gupta Technical Education Society and Ors., 2002 (3) SCR 217 : (2002) 5 sec 30 - referred to. G H 1110 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2015] 6 S.C.R. A Case Law Reference (2002) 3 sec 1 sg Referred to. Para 6 2006 (6) Suppl. SCR 163 Referred to. Para 9 B 2002 (3) SCR 217 Referred to. Para 10 CIVILAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 4472of2015. c From the Judgment and Order dated 16.04.2013 in the High Court of Judicature at Madrs, Madurai Bench in C. R. P. (NPD) (MD) No. 4 of 2013. Vli!TH D C. A. No. 4473 of 2015 Brijender Chahar, D. Kumaran, Satya Mitra Garg for the Appellants. E Nalini Chidambaram, V. Balaji, C. Kannan, Sripatha, F D. Veda, Rakesh K. Sharma for the Respondents. The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R. BANUMATHI, J. 1. Leave granted. 2. These appeals arise out of common order dated 16.04.2013, passed by the High Court of Madras, Madurai Bench in C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.4/2013 and C.R.P. (NPD) (MD) No.5/2013 respectively, confirming the order dated G 4.12.2012 passed by the Principal District Judge, Thanjavur, imposing conditions to deposit Rs.1, 50,00,000/- and Rs.10,00,000/-, as a condit
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.