https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284294 A litigant who bona fide pursues an Order IX Rule 13 remedy against an ex parte decree may invoke that period as sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the limitation law if there is no gross negligence, dilatory conduct, or lack of bona fides. The remedies under Order IX Rule 13 and the first appeal under Section 96(2) are distinct, so dismissal of the former does not bar the latter. The right of first appeal remains intact, subject to the court's separate inquiry into delay. The SC accordingly set aside the refusal to condone delay, restored the appeal, and directed decision on merits. en-us Tue, 07 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 Thu, 14 Nov 2024 12:50:00 +0530 TaxTMI RSS Generator https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284294 A litigant who bona fide pursues an Order IX Rule 13 remedy against an ex parte decree may invoke that period as sufficient cause for condonation of delay under the limitation law if there is no gross negligence, dilatory conduct, or lack of bona fides. The remedies under Order IX Rule 13 and the first appeal under Section 96(2) are distinct, so dismissal of the former does not bar the latter. The right of first appeal remains intact, subject to the court's separate inquiry into delay. The SC accordingly set aside the refusal to condone delay, restored the appeal, and directed decision on merits. Case-Laws Indian Laws Tue, 07 May 2019 00:00:00 +0530 https://www.taxtmi.com/caselaws?id=284294