SATYABHAMA SAHOO Vs. DAKA AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties.

(3.) On a bare perusal of the order of the High Court, the reasoning and the conclusion are at variance with each other. Once the High Court concluded that there was no sufficient explanation in the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure to set aside the ex-parte decree, the High Court, by an order, unconnected with that aspect of the matter, could not have condoned the delay by observing simply that a Suit of a civil nature could be decided on merits rather than technicalities. The Suit itself was filed in 1997, decreed ex-parte on 12.03.2007, application under Order IX Rule 13 was filed by the respondent 3 years and 9 months late. The lower Court has adequately discussed the conduct of the respondent before disallowing the application to recall the ex-parte decree.