UNION OF INDIA Vs. NARULA UDYOG PVT LTD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The basic issue involved in this case is as to whether the Additional District Judge was justified in having dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 13.09.1996 passed against them despite having condoned the delay in filing of the said application vide order dated 11.11.1995 primarily by accepting the case of the appellants that they had no knowledge about the transfer of civil suit which was originally filed by the respondent against the appellants in this court to the District Court.

(2.) To appreciate the controversy between the parties it would be appropriate to take note of the order passed by the Additional District Judge dated 11.11.1995, whereby the Additional District Judge condoned the delay of about 8 years in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The reasons given by the Additional District Judge are as follows:-

(3.) However, despite the aforementioned observations of the Additional District Judge while condoning the delay in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, another Additional District Judge has dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC even though the plea taken by the appellants was similar as taken in the application for condonation of delay i.e. that on 11.05.1993 counsel for the appellant did not appear before this Court and the matter was transferred to the District Court and, as such, the appellants had no knowledge about the transfer of this matter to District Court; counsel also did not intimate the transfer of the suit to this court; the notice for 21.12.1995 which was received by the appellant was not accompanied with the copy of the case as required under Order V Rule 2 CPC and even the notice did not bear the case number of the suit and thus, the appellant could not appear before the Court on 21.12.1995. It was also pleaded that the court notice issued to Sh.R.K.Mehra, counsel for appellant, for 21.12.1995 was not a valid service to the appellants as the counsel had already resigned from the case on 13.12.1989. It was also pleaded that the court directly fixed the matter for ex parte evidence without proceeding the appellants as ex parte and that the appellants had never received any notice under Section 80 CPC and even no exemption application was moved by the respondent under Order 80(2) CPC.