THE KOUSHIK MUTUALLY AIDED COOPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY vs AMEENA BEGUM & ANOTHER

Bench: 2 — .............J. [B.V. NAGARATHNA] .............J. [UJJAL BHUYAN]

In Brief

The case concerns the remedies available to a defendant against an ex-parte decree. The respondent sought to set aside an ex-parte decree passed in 1999 by filing an application in 2016, accompanied by a plea to condone a delay of 5767 days under the Limitation Act. The trial court dismissed the application, and the respondent filed a civil revision petition before the High Court, which allowed it. The Supreme Court held that a civil revision petition is not maintainable when an express appellate remedy exists. Order XLIII Rule 1(d) CPC provides an appeal against dismissal of an Order IX Rule 13 application. The Court set aside the revision petition order and granted liberty to file an appeal within the specified time.

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

Civil Procedure Specific Performance Ex-parte Decrees Remedies Against Ex-parte Decrees Appellate Jurisdiction Revision Limitation Order IX Rule 13 CPC Order XLIII Rule 1(d) CPC Section 115 CPC

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.