In Brief
A bank sought recovery against a guarantor under an ex parte decree from the Debt Recovery Tribunal. The guarantor claimed she misunderstood the notice as relating to her personal loan and learned of the true proceedings only when a recovery certificate was published. She filed a delayed application to set aside the ex parte decree with a plea for condonation of delay. The Tribunal rejected condonation, but the Appellate Tribunal reversed this, finding sufficient cause. The High Court upheld the Appellate Tribunal's decision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the defendant's genuine misunderstanding of the proceedings and discovery through the recovery notice constituted sufficient cause for delay, and remitted the matter to the Tribunal for adjudication on merits without expressing opinion on the substantive claims."
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.