CourtKutchehry.com
High CourtsSingle Bench(2010) 11 AHC CK 0168

Vinod Sharma vs Xth A.D.J. and Others

Allahabad High Court · Decided on 16 November 2010

HON’BLE JUDGES
Bharati Sapru, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Writ C. No. 14024 of 1997

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

10 paragraphs · 360 words

Bharati Sapru, J.—Heard learned Counsel for the Petitioner.

2.

Service on the Respondents is deemed to be complete.

3.

This writ petition has been filed by the Petitioner seeking a writ of certiorari to quash the orders and judgment dated 27.2.1997 and 17.8.1996 passed by Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 respectively, in so far as they relates to the conditions imposed by the two authorities directing the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. 20,000/- in the court while setting aside the exparte decree.

4.

The facts of this case are not in dispute and an exparte decree was passed against the Petitioner. The Petitioner applied under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the exparte decree. The Court put a condition in the order while restoring the matter under the above provisions that the Petitioner shall pay half of the decretal amount.

5.

Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has argued that once the exparte decree was set aside no such condition of depositing half of the decretal amount could have been put on the Petitioner.

6.

However, a plain reading of the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC themselves show that while considering an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC it is open to the court while setting aside the exparte decree to put the parties to such a terms such as costs or payment into the Court or otherwise as it thinks fit and thereafter proceed with the suit.

7.

In this case the reason provided for imposing the condition is that there had already been considerable delay in disposing of the suit and therefore, the condition was imposed on the Petitioner for deposit of 50% of the decretal amount. The suit had been filed relating to a loan defined by the Plaintiff of which the Petitioner had been a guarantor.

8.

Thus, I am satisfied that the condition imposed is neither arbitrary nor unjust and had been rightly imposed.

9.

In view of the above the writ petition is dismissed.

10.

The Petitioner shall make the deposit of the amount under the condition within a period of one month from today.