Order IX Rule 13 and SICA bar principles: ex parte decree stood, and a money recovery suit was not barred.

An application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was rejected because the appellant showed no due diligence, gave no satisfactory explanation for years of inaction, and could not rely on mere alleged negligence of counsel to set aside the ex parte decree. Section 22 of SICA was held to stay coercive proceedings such as winding up, execution, distress, receiver appointment, or similar enforcement measures, but not to bar a simple money recovery suit under the ejusdem generis principle. The recovery action was therefore not barred, and the challenge to the ex parte decree also failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deserved to be allowed on the ground of absence of appearance and alleged negligence of counsel. (ii) Whether the suit for recovery and the proceedings arising therefrom were barred by Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Issue (i): Whether the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 deserved to be allowed on the ground of absence of appearance and alleged negligence of counsel.

Analysis: The record showed that appearance had been entered for the appellant after service by publication, but no written statement was filed and the court was not informed about the BIFR reference or its pendency. The appellant remained inactive for years after coming out of the SICA regime and offered no satisfactory explanation for the delay. Mere blame placed on prior counsel was held insufficient, particularly where the conduct reflected lack of diligence in contesting the suit.

Conclusion: The application under Order IX Rule 13 was not deserving of interference and the refusal to set aside the ex parte decree was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the suit for recovery and the proceedings arising therefrom were barred by Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Analysis: Section 22 was held to suspend proceedings in the nature of winding up, execution, distress, receiver appointment, and proceedings of the like kind that could impede revival. Applying the ejusdem generis construction approved in precedent, a simple suit for recovery of money was distinguished from coercive enforcement proceedings and was not treated as automatically barred. The appellant also failed to disclose the BIFR reference to the court when required to do so.

Conclusion: The recovery suit was not barred by Section 22 of the Sick Industrial Companies (Special Provisions) Act, 1985.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed on both the challenge to the ex parte decree and the plea of statutory bar under SICA, and the impugned order was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: Section 22 of SICA bars coercive proceedings of the nature of execution, distress, or similar enforcement, but does not ipso facto bar a money recovery suit, and a party seeking relief against an ex parte decree must show due diligence and a credible explanation for default.

---