DEVJI SHIVJI Vs. SANTI SWAROOP CHATURVEDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal from a order of Sinha J. refusing to set aside an ex parte decree made against the appellant. It was admitted before Sinha J. that the deft, was served w a summons. It appears that the deft, wrote letters -to the Registrar of this Court saying that he was ill, but the learned Resistrar of this Court made it clear that he could not interfere and that the appellant would have to take proper steps in the case. The appellant never entered appearance and in due course the case came into the undefended, list and a decree was made in favour of the plff. The date of the decree is 28 -11 -1949.

(2.) THE period of limitation for applications to -set aside an ex parte decree is thirty days from the date of the decree or, where no summons was duly served, thirty days from the date when the applicant had knowledge of the decree, the period of limitation being provided by Article 164, Limitation Act. The appellant having admitted that he was duly served with a summons the period of limitation applicable in this case is thirty days from the date or the decree. An application, however, to set aside this ex parts decree was not made until 21 -2 -1950 and was therefore over fifty days late. No application was made to this Court to condone the delay and to extend the time for making the application under Section 5, Limitation Act.

(3.) I find it rather difficult to appreciate why Order 9, Rule 13. Civil P. C. which is part of the statutory law of the land is not applicable to proceedings in the High Court on its Original Side, because the procedure on that side of the High Court is different from the procedure in Mofussil Courts. If the procedure followed on the Original Side of this Court makes it difficult to apply the 'eneral law of the land that is no reason for holding that the general law of the land does not apply to this High Court.