TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (7) TMI 2021
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of goods sold to the respondent. The suit was filed on 24.08.2011 in this Court and was contested by the respondent by filing the written statement. Issues were framed on 25.05.2013. After completing the plaintiff's evidence, the defendant was given an opportunity to lead evidence but did not do so. Defence evidence was first closed on 28.10.2015; however, on his application, an opportunity to lead evidence was granted by an order dated 14.03.2016, after transfer of the suit from this Court to the Court of the Additional District Judge. Further opportunities were granted on 22.04.2016, 22.08.2016 and 09.09.2016, whereafter the defendant's evidence was closed by an order dated 04.11.2016. The suit was ultimately decreed on 08.11.20....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....the plaintiff/non-applicant that application is barred by limitation, since the defendant has mentioned that he remained in jail from 06.10.2015 to 06.05.2017 and came to know about judgment/decree after his release from the jail when he contacted his counsel. There is nothing on record which lead to disbelieve the said averment of the defendant. Hence he would come to know about the date of decree after his release. He released from jail on 06.05.2017 and application was filed on 17.05.2017, therefore application has been filed within period of 30 days of limitation. Hence, I do not find force in the contention of Ld. Counsel for the plaintiff/non-applicant that application is beyond limitation. 10. As far as another contention of Ld. Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to the Hon'ble High Court and then again transferred to the District Court for 09.09.2016. On 09.09.2016, my Ld. Predecessor was not sure that accused is in JC therefore she has asked for the affidavit of the counsel for the defendant regarding the defendant being still in JC on 09.09.2016 and apparently same was not furnished when the case was listed on 04.11.2016. In fact some proxy counsel appeared on behalf of applicant/defendant on that day to apprise the status of defendant whether he was in JC or not, due to which court closed the DE. As averred by the defendant, he was in JC and only released from jail on 06.05.2017. This fact has not been contradicted by the applicant/plaintiff. Therefore in my view there was no fault for his....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I find considerable merit in the contention of the petitioner. The principles governing exercise of jurisdiction under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC have been summarised by the Supreme Court in Parimal vs. Veena Alias Bharti (2011) 3 SCC 545 (Paragraph 16) as follows: "16. In order to determine the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the test that has to be applied is whether the defendant honestly and sincerely intended to remain present when the suit was called on for hearing and did his best to do so. Sufficient cause is thus the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. Therefore, the applicant must approach the court with a reasonable defence. Sufficient c....