KOMMLE Vs. REDDMAGMANE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE applicant/wife moved an application under Order 9, Rule l3, CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree with an application under Section 5 Limitation Act for condonation of delay and extension of time for late filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC. As the non-applicant joined the issue the Trial Court directed that evidence of the parties shall be recorded on the question of sufficiency of cause for condonation of delay. The applicant examined herself but the non-applicant did not lead any evidence.

(2.) AFTER hearing the parties, the Trial Court finding that there did not exist any sufficient cause for late filing of the application under Ordre 9, Rule 13, CPC, it rejected the application by the impugned order. It appears that by an order recorded in proceedings, the lower Court also rejected the main petition, filed under Order 9, Rule 13, CPC.

(3.) MR. Trivedi, learned Counsel for the applicant submits that the order passed by the Court below is based on mis-construction of the evidence and the findings if not perverse, are bad in law. He submits that the evidence available on the record clearly shows that the present applicant never refused service of the notice.