Court Upholds Dismissal of Application to Set Aside Ex Parte Decree

The court upheld the lower court's decision to dismiss the application to set aside the ex parte decree due to the revision petitioners' gross negligence and lack of bona fides. The court emphasized the importance of sufficient cause for excusing delay and highlighted the revision petitioners' irresponsible behavior in allowing the suit to be decreed ex parte. The civil revision petition was ultimately dismissed, with no costs awarded.

---

---

Issues:
Delay in filing the petition under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree.

Analysis:
The suit was filed against multiple defendants for recovery of possession, declaration of rights, permanent injunction, and mesne profits. The revision petitioners, defendants 4, 6, 12, 27, and 36, filed an application to condone a delay of 797 days in filing the petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed against them. The plaintiffs alleged lack of bona fides on the part of the revision petitioners, claiming they deliberately allowed the suit to be decreed ex parte. The lower court dismissed the application, prompting the civil revision petition.

The revision petitioners argued that they had a valid defense and should be allowed to contest the case. They cited judgments in support of their contentions, including Jai Pal Singh v. Chief Settlement Commissioner, Vasu Thevar v. Rukmani Ammal, and Devi v. Jayaraman. However, the contesting respondents contended that the revision petitioners lacked bona fides and deliberately absented themselves from trial, with no acceptable explanation for the delay. The first revision petitioner admitted being informed about the ex parte decree but remained silent, suggesting harassment of the plaintiffs.

The court examined various legal precedents cited by both parties, including Jai Pal Singh, Vasu Thevar, and Devi v. Jayaraman. The court highlighted the importance of sufficient cause for excusing delay and the discretion granted to condone delays to advance substantial justice. Referring to Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd, the court emphasized the need to consider whether negligence or lack of bona fides could be attributed to the party seeking condonation of delay.

In light of the evidence and arguments presented, the court found the revision petitioners grossly negligent, irresponsible, and lacking in bona fides. The court upheld the lower court's decision, emphasizing that the revision did not involve irregular exercise of jurisdiction. Consequently, the civil revision petition was dismissed, along with associated CMPs. No costs were awarded in the judgment.

---