MANJU BAI Vs. BRAJENDRA KUMAR SHAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the order dated 9.12.2000 in M.J.C No. 24/97, by Seventh Additional District Judge, Bhopal, whereby. the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, as well as an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act, for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree in C.S. No. 3 -A/96, were dismissed. Undisputably, the appellant is the tenant of the respondent -landlord. The respondent filed a Civil Suit No, 3 -A/96 in the trial Court for eviction of the appellant -tenant. It was fixed for evidence on 24.2.1997. However, on that date, the appellant -tenant did not make her appearance in the Court, and therefore, the suit was proceeded against her ex parte Alter recording evidence, the ex parte judgment and decree was passed The appellant -tenant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree against her on 30.8.1997, as also an application under section 5 of the Limitation Act. for condonation of delay in filing the said application.

(2.) LEARNED trial Court, after giving the parties an opportunity of hearing and after recording evidence on the said applications, observed that the ground alleged by the appellant for condonation of delay was not convincing and did not constitute sufficient cause. Hence, the application for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act was dismissed. Consequently, application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was also dismissed.

(3.) THE learned trial Court found that the appellant has failed to place satisfactory evidence to show that she was ill right from before the date of hearing, i.e.. 24.2.1997 till 9.8.1997. It appears that the appellant did not place any medical certificate nor prove her ailment by any other evidence besides her own statement in that regard.