How to File an Application to Set Aside an Ex Parte Decree in India Under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC
When a defendant fails to appear before a civil court on the date fixed for hearing, the court may proceed to hear the case in the defendant's absence and pass a decree known as an ex parte decree. The Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 provides a specific remedy for the aggrieved defendant: an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte decree. This guide explains the grounds, limitation period, procedure, and practical aspects of filing such an application.
What Is an Ex Parte Decree
An ex parte decree is a decree passed by a civil court after hearing only one side (the plaintiff) because the defendant did not appear on the date of hearing. Under Order 9 Rule 6 of the CPC, when the defendant has been duly served with summons but fails to appear, the court may proceed ex parte and pass a decree based on the plaintiff's evidence alone. Such a decree carries the same force as any other decree but can be challenged through the specific mechanism provided under Order 9 Rule 13. The concept differs from a default judgment; it is specific to non-appearance after due service. Where a party is interested in restoring a dismissed civil case under Order 9 CPC, the procedure differs from setting aside an ex parte decree.
Grounds for Setting Aside an Ex Parte Decree
Order 9 Rule 13 CPC provides two distinct grounds on which a defendant may apply to set aside an ex parte decree:
1. Summons not duly served: If the defendant can demonstrate that the summons was not properly served in accordance with the rules prescribed under the CPC (Order 5), the court is bound to set aside the ex parte decree. This ground addresses situations where the defendant had no notice of the proceedings. 2. Sufficient cause for non-appearance: If the defendant was duly served but was prevented by any "sufficient cause" from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the court shall set aside the decree. The Supreme Court in Parimal v. Veena (2011) clarified that "sufficient cause" means the defendant did not act negligently and genuinely intended to be present but was prevented by circumstances beyond reasonable control.
The expression "sufficient cause" is to be interpreted liberally to enable the court to do complete justice between the parties, particularly when no negligence or deliberate inaction is attributable to the defendant. Examples of sufficient cause include serious illness, accident, death in the family, natural calamity, or a genuine miscommunication about the hearing date.
Limitation Period
Under Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963, an application to set aside an ex parte decree must be filed within 30 days from the date of the decree. This is a strict timeline and applies in cases where the defendant was aware of the proceedings but failed to appear. However, a distinction must be drawn: where the defendant was never served with summons at all and had no knowledge of the decree, the 30-day period may be reckoned from the date the defendant first learned of the ex parte decree. If the application is filed beyond the 30-day period, it must be accompanied by a separate application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, demonstrating sufficient cause for the delay.
Step-by-Step Procedure
Step 1: Obtain a certified copy of the ex parte decree from the court records. This is necessary to verify the date of the decree and the terms of the order. Step 2: Draft the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The application should clearly state the facts, identify the ground relied upon (non-service of summons or sufficient cause for non-appearance), and set out the reasons in detail with supporting evidence. Step 3: If the application is being filed beyond the 30-day limitation period, prepare a separate application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, explaining the reasons for the delay. Step 4: Pay the requisite court fees. The court fee for an application under Order 9 Rule 13 is generally a fixed amount prescribed by the respective State court fees legislation. Step 5: File the application before the same court that passed the ex parte decree. The application must be accompanied by an affidavit verifying the facts stated therein. Step 6: Serve a copy of the application on the plaintiff (decree holder) as required by the court. Step 7: Attend the hearing. The court will consider the application and the evidence presented. If the court is satisfied that either ground is established, it shall set aside the decree and restore the suit for hearing on merits.
Important Conditions and Costs
The proviso to Order 9 Rule 13 states that the court shall not set aside a decree merely upon the defendant's application; the court must be satisfied on the merits of the grounds pleaded. Additionally, the court may impose costs on the defendant as a condition for setting aside the decree, particularly where the non-appearance caused delay and inconvenience to the plaintiff. The court may also direct the defendant to deposit the decretal amount or furnish security as a condition for setting aside the decree, though this is discretionary. It is also important to note that once an appeal against an ex parte decree has been disposed of on any ground other than withdrawal, the defendant is barred from filing an application under Order 9 Rule 13. This interplay between the appeal remedy and the setting-aside remedy must be carefully considered. For related procedural remedies in civil cases, one may also consider filing a revision petition under Section 115 CPC or a garnishee order for debt recovery depending on the circumstances.
Alternative Remedies
A defendant against whom an ex parte decree has been passed has multiple remedies available: 1. Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC: To set aside the decree before the same court (discussed above). 2. Appeal under Section 96(2) CPC: A regular first appeal against the ex parte decree in the appellate court. 3. Review under Section 114 CPC: An application for review of the decree before the same court, though the grounds for review are narrower. These remedies are generally considered concurrent, meaning the defendant may pursue more than one simultaneously. However, as noted, if an appeal is dismissed on merits (not on withdrawal), the Order 9 Rule 13 remedy becomes unavailable. Parties involved in disputes may also wish to explore resolving property disputes through mediation as an alternative to prolonged litigation.
Related Reading
Key Takeaways
1. Order 9 Rule 13 CPC provides a specific remedy for defendants to set aside an ex parte decree passed due to their non-appearance. 2. The two grounds are: summons was not duly served, or the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing. 3. "Sufficient cause" is interpreted liberally; genuine reasons beyond the defendant's control are accepted. 4. The limitation period under Article 123 of the Limitation Act is 30 days from the date of the decree. 5. If filed beyond 30 days, a condonation of delay application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act must accompany the main application. 6. The application must be filed before the same court that passed the ex parte decree. 7. If an appeal against the ex parte decree is dismissed on merits, the Order 9 Rule 13 remedy is barred. 8. The defendant may simultaneously pursue an appeal under Section 96(2) CPC as an alternative or concurrent remedy.
Comments