NAIMAT KAUR ANAND Vs. DECON COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both these applications have been filed for setting aside ex-parte decree dated 15.9.1995, can be disposed of together. In the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 it is set out that the Written Statement had been filed and issues had also been framed. It is stated in the application under O. 9 R.13 that the Defendant/Applicant came to know of the ex-parte decree on 7.11.1996. It is further averred in this application that on 19.10.1996 the Applicant was out of station and Shri P.M. Singh, an employee of the Defendant Company was present in the showroom when the Bailiff arrived there for executing the ex-parte decree, and that a cheque was handed over by Shri P.M. Singh, an employee of Decon Lighting Pvt. Ltd. On presentation, this cheque was dishonoured as payment had been stopped by the Judgment-Debtor/Applicant/Defendant. The only reason for setting aside the ex parte orders is contained in para 2 of the application which reads as under:

(2.) The application under Order 9 Rule 13 (I.A. 12551/96) which was supported by the Defendant's affidavit dated 3.12.1996, appears to have been drafted and made ready on 29.11.1996, as is evident from the date on the Index and the application for urgent hearing. No reason for this delay, albeit of five days, has been offered.

(3.) It appears that almost eight months later it was discovered that an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 ought to have been filed in order to seek a condonation of delay in filing the application under O. 9 R. 13. In para 5 of the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act it is stated :