BROUGHT  TO YOU  BY   RAJEEV BHATJIWALE

MUKESH V / S MEENAKSHI its 1996 J. L. J. 143

Order9 rule 13 shows that where an appeal has been preferred against an ex parte decree , application for setting aside the ex parte decree does not lie.  The Supreme Court has in RANI CHAUDHARY V/S LT COL SURAJ JIT CHAUDHARY AIR 1982 S. C. 1397 has observed that an application for setting aside the ex parte decree was not competent where an appeal against decree was disposed of. Similarly a DB of MP high court has in case of  SUMERA  V/S MADAN LAL A. I R 1989 M. P. 2 2 4 has observed that the remedies available for setting aside an ex parte decree are that the defendant may file an application under order 9 rule 13 ,or file an appeal. Therefore it is clear that the defendant can either move an application under order 9 rule 13 or file an appeal under section 96 C. P. C. and where an appeal against order refusing to set aside ex parte decree is being argued the decree itself cannot be challenged in such appeal .Court has to confine itself to the point whether a refusal to set aside ex parte decree is proper or not

to a room=====================================

S S RAMCHAND V/S DHARMENDRA KUMAR 1990 J  L J 706

In an Application for

Where there are many disputes arising out, issues should be framed opportunity to lead evidence should also be given thereon. 

[ Home ] [ Up ]

Copyright © 2001 rajeev bhatjiwale
Last modified: April 11, 2001