Order IX Rule 13 CPC

Source:  Rajasthan High Court 

Why in News? 

Recently, Justice Anoop Kumar Dhand held that delay rules should not defeat substantive rights, quashing the Board of Revenue’s rejection of an Order IX Rule 13 Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) plea for lacking an initial delay-condonation application. The Court observed that limitations of laws are meant to ensure timely remedies, not to destroy legal rights. 

• The Rajasthan High Court held this in the matter of Arjun Lal & Ors. v Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. (2025). 

What was the Background of Arjun Lal & Ors. v Rameshwar Prasad & Ors. (2025) ? 

• The petitioners were defendants in a revenue suit filed by the respondents before the Assistant Collector, Jaipur City-II. 
• The petitioners had been regularly appearing in the proceedings before the trial court. 
• On 06th April 2022 and 11th April 2022, the petitioners remained absent from the court hearings. 
• On 13.04.2022, due to the illness of petitioner No.2 (the mother), the petitioners could not appear before the court. 
• Consequently, an ex-parte order was passed against the petitioners on 13th April 2022. 
• Subsequently, an ex-parte decree was drawn on 29th April 2022. 
• The petitioners were unaware of the passing of the ex-parte order and decree initially. 
• Upon gaining knowledge of the ex-parte proceedings, the petitioners filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC) on 06.06.2022 to set aside the ex-parte order and decree. 
• The delay in filing the application was approximately six days beyond the limitation period. 
• The reasons for the delay were explained in the application under Order XI Rule 13 CPC itself, citing the mother's illness as the cause of non-appearance. 
• No separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was filed along with the original application. 
• When the respondents raised objections regarding the absence of a condonation application, the petitioners filed an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 27th June 2022. 
• The respondents had filed a caveat before the Appellate Court, anticipating that the petitioners might file an appeal. 
• The Assistant Collector, after considering the applications and the reasons mentioned therein, allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC vide order dated 28th July 2022. 
• The Assistant Collector condoned the delay and set aside the ex-parte order and decree dated 29th July 2022. 
• Aggrieved by the Assistant Collector's order, the respondents filed a revision petition under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955 before the Board of Revenue. 
• The Board of Revenue, vide order dated 28th May 2024, allowed the revision petition on technical grounds. 
• The Board held that the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was not submitted along with the original application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, but was filed subsequently. 
• Based on this technical deficiency, the Board quashed and set aside the Assistant Collector's order dated 28th July 2022. 
• The respondents contended that the petitioners had availed two parallel remedies by filing both an appeal and an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. 
• Challenging the Board's order, the petitioners filed the present writ petition before the High Court. 

What were the Court’s Observations? 

• The Court observed that the reasons for delay were adequately explained in the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC itself. 
• The Court noted that the deficiency pointed out by the respondents was promptly cured by the petitioners by immediately filing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. 
• In the Court's opinion, the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was not defective merely because the condonation application was filed subsequently rather than simultaneously. 
• The Court observed that the delay was merely of six days, which had been satisfactorily explained by the petitioners. 
• The Court held that it is a settled proposition of law that a superior court should not disturb findings of the trial court unless the exercise of discretion was on wholly untenable grounds or was arbitrary or perverse. 
• The Court emphasised that the primary function of the court is to adjudicate disputes between parties and advance substantial justice. 
• The Court observed that rules of limitation are not meant to destroy the rights of parties, but are meant to ensure that parties do not resort to dilatory tactics and seek their remedy promptly. 
• The Court stated that the object of providing a legal remedy is to repair the damage caused by reason of legal injury. 
• The Court noted that the law of limitation fixes a lifespan for such legal remedies for the redressal of legal injuries suffered. 
• The Court observed that all material aspects of the matter were properly considered by the Assistant Collector whilst setting aside the ex-parte decree and order. 
• The Court held that there was no great delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, as it was filed within a period of one month and six days after the passing of the ex-parte decree. 
• The Court found that the reasons explained by the petitioners before the Assistant Collector were satisfactory. 
• The Court concluded that the Assistant Collector was right in allowing the application filed by the petitioners and setting aside the ex-parte order and decree. 
• The Court held that the order of the Assistant Collector had been unnecessarily quashed by the Board of Revenue in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction under Section 230 of the Rajasthan Tenancy Act, 1955. 
• The Court observed that the Board had decided the matter on mere technical grounds without appreciating the substantive aspects of justice. 
• The Court directed the Assistant Collector to decide the suit expeditiously, preferably within a period of one year from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. 

What is Order IX Rule 13 CPC ? 

• Order IX Rule 13 CPC - Setting Aside Decree Ex Parte Against Defendant. 
• A defendant against whom an ex parte decree has been passed may apply to the court which passed the decree to set it aside. 
• The defendant must satisfy the court on either of two grounds: that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing at the hearing. 
• If satisfied, the court shall set aside the decree upon such terms as to costs, payment into court, or otherwise as it thinks fit. 
• Upon setting aside the decree, the court shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit. 
• Where the decree cannot be set aside against the applying defendant only, it may be set aside against all or any other defendants also. 
• No court shall set aside an ex parte decree merely on the ground of irregularity in service of summons, if the defendant had notice of the hearing date and sufficient time to appear. 
• Where an appeal against an ex parte decree has been disposed of on any ground other than withdrawal, no application shall lie under this rule for setting aside that decree. 
• The rule confers discretionary power upon the court to balance the interests of justice whilst preventing abuse of process.