MAYANK SINGH BHADAURIYA Vs. PRABHAT KUMAR SHARMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard counsel for the parties.

(2.) The instant revision is directed against an order dated 4.12.2018 by which the court below has rejected an application filed by the revisionist under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of ex parte decree dated 2.8.2018 in SCC Suit No. 109 of 2017. The court below has recorded a finding that application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed on 6.9.2018 was not accompanied by deposit of the decreetal amount payable under the decree nor any application for furnishing security. Though, an application for furnishing security was filed on 29.11.2018, but the court below has held that the application should have been filed alongwith application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. It has no power to condone delay in filing the said application in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Kedar Nath v. Mohan Lal Kesarwani and others, 2002 (1) ARC 186 and judgment of this Court in Satyendra Kumar Gupta v. Additional District Judge dated 31.1.2014 in Civil Revision No. 131 of 2013.

(3.) Learned counsel for the revisionist submitted that the revisionist is ready to deposit 1/3rd of the decreetal amount within such time as may be directed by this Court and the trial court be directed to decide the restoration application on merits.