Breaking Supreme Court Legal Update
New Delhi · Thursday, 06 August 2026 9888666310 | [email protected]
Free Law — free judgments and free headnotes Free Lawby De Jure
Supreme Court of India 2019-11-21 allowed

N. MOHAN vs R. MADHU

Bench: 3 — R. Banumathi, A.S. Bopanna, Hrishikesh Roy

In Brief

A businessman who received a 45-lakh-rupee loan issued cheques that were dishonored. The lender sued and obtained an ex-parte decree. The businessman first tried to set aside the decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, but that application was dismissed. He then filed a regular appeal after 546 days. The High Court refused to condone the delay. The Supreme Court held that the right to appeal under Section 96(2) CPC is a separate statutory right that cannot be denied merely because an earlier application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was dismissed. If pursued bona fide, the time spent in such proceedings can count toward condonation of delay. The Court allowed the appeal on condition that the businessman deposit the balance amount of 20 lakhs.

The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.

Civil Procedure Appellate Jurisdiction Ex-Parte Decrees Limitation Condonation of Delay Order IX Rule 13 CPC Section 96(2) CPC Statutory Right of Appeal

Read the full judgment & headnote. It's free.

Register to read the complete Supreme Court judgment text and the headnote, and to search 1 lakh+ Supreme Court judgments by meaning. It is a free service.

Register Free Login