LexN. MOHAN versus R. MADHU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B C D E F G H 156 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R. N. MOHAN v. R. MADHU (Civil Appeal No. 8898 of 2019) NOVEMBER 21, 2019 [R. BANUMATHI, A. S. BOPANNA AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.] Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 – Or. IX, r.13 and s.96(2) – Respondent-plaintiff case was that he lent appellant a sum of Rs.45,00,000/- and appellant-defendant failed to return the said amount – The suit was decreed ex-parte – Thereafter, appellant filed application u/s.5 of the Limitation Act to condone delay of 276 days in filing the petition u/Or. IX, r.13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree – The petition was dismissed by the Trial Court and revision against the same was dismissed by the High Court – The SLP preferred against the said order also came to be dismissed by the Supreme Court – After dismissal of SLP, the appellant filed first appeal along with application to condone the delay of 546 days – High Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay on the ground that in the earlier proceedings u/Or. IX, r. 13 CPC, the appellant had stated the same reasons to set aside the ex-parte decree and same was not accepted by the Trial Court, High Court and the Supreme Court – On appeal, held: Right to file and appeal u/s.96(2) CPC is a statutory remedy – The right to appeal is not mere matter of procedure; but is a substantive right – Right to appeal u/s.96(2) CPC challenging the original decree passed ex-parte, being a statutory right, the defendant cannot be deprived of the statutory right thereby on the ground that the application filed u/or. IX, r. 13 CPC was earlier dismissed – Whether the defendant has adopted dilatory tactics or where there is a lack of bona fide in pursuing the remedy of appeal u/s. 96 (2) CPC, has to be considered depending upon facts and circumstances of each case – In the instant case, the appellant has shown his bonafide by depositing Rs. 25,00,000/ - in the compliance with the orders of the Supreme Court – Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and in the [2019] 14 S.C.R. 156 156 A B C D E F G H 157 interest of justice, appellant granted opportunity to put forth his defence in the suit for recovery of money – To avail this opportunity, appellant directed to deposit the balance amount of Rs. 20,00,000/-, the delay of 546 days in filing the first appeal condoned. Disposing the appeal, the Court HELD : 1. The defendant against whom an ex-parte decree is passed, has two options. First option is to file an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and second option is to file an appeal under Section 96(2) CPC. The question to be considered is whether the two options are to be exercised simultaneously or can also be exercised consecutively. An unscrupulous litigant may, of course, firstly file an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC and carry the matter up to the highest forum; thereafter may opt to file appeal under Section 96(2) CPC challenging the ex-parte decree. In that event, considerable time would be lost for the plaintiff. The question falling for consideration is that whether the remedies provided as simultaneous can be converted into consecutive remedies. [Para 14] [165-G-H; 166-A-B] 2. An appeal under Section 96(2) CPC is a statutory right, the defendant cannot be deprived of the statutory right merely on the ground that earlier, the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was dismissed. Whether the defendant has adopted dilatory tactics or where there is a lack of bona fide in pursuing the remedy of appeal under Section 96(2) of the Code, has to be considered depending upon the facts and circumstances of each case. In case the court is satisfied that the defendant has adopted dilatory tactics or where there is lack of bona fide, the court may decline to condone the delay in filing the first appeal under Section 96(2) CPC. But where the defendant has been pursuing the remedy bona fide under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, if the court refuses to condone the delay in the time spent in pursuing the remedy under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, the defendant would be deprived of the statutory right of appeal. Whether the defendant has adopted dilatory tactics or where there is lack of bona fide in pursuing the remedy of appeal under Section 96(2) of the code N. MOHAN v. R. MADHU A B C D E F G H 158 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2019] 14 S.C.R. after the dismissal of the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, is a question of fact and the same has to be considered depending upon the facts and circu
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.