In Brief
A defendant in a partition suit received an ex-parte decree after allegedly missing service of summons. He first filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the decree, which was dismissed on merits in 2010. He then appealed that order, but withdrew it after three years and filed a regular appeal challenging the ex-parte decree itself, seeking condonation of delay. The High Court refused condonation. The Supreme Court held that a defendant has two distinct remedies against an ex-parte decree, and they need not be pursued simultaneously. The time spent pursuing the first remedy constitutes 'sufficient cause' to condone delay in the second appeal. The court set aside the High Court's judgment and allowed the appeal, restoring the first appeal on merits.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.