In Brief
The heirs of a deceased defendant sought to revive his application to set aside an ex parte decree passed in a specific performance suit, after his application under Order IX Rule 13 was dismissed for default. The Supreme Court held that an appeal against dismissal of a restoration application is maintainable under Order XLIII Rule 1(c), as such restoration applications fall within Order IX Rule 9 (read with Section 141). The Court rejected the argument that the words 'rejecting an application' in Order XLIII refer only to rejection on merits; they include dismissal for default. Section 5 of the Limitation Act also permits condonation of delay. The appeal was allowed and the matter remitted to the trial court for fresh decision within three months.",
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.