PNG Textiles Pvt Ltd v. Sudan Singh

1. Having heard the learned counsels for the parties and on perusal of the record, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the present appeal instituted by the appellant/Judgment Debtor under Order XLIII Rule 1(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908[1] assailing the impugned judgment dated 04.12.2018 passed by the learned Trial Court, is bereft of any merits.

2. In a nutshell, the respondent/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery for an amount of Rs. 13,55,315/- against the appellant/defendant and the summons for settlement were duly served upon the appellant/defendant, so much so the written statement was filed on its behalf and the matter was taken up on different dates. Replication 1 CPC was also filed in the matter and issues were framed on 07.10.2018. It is also borne out from the record that the testimony of PW-1 on behalf of the respondent/plaintiff was recorded and since the learned counsel for the defendant was not available, matter was adjourned to 17.05.2016, subject to the cost of Rs. 2,000/- to be paid by appellant/defendant.

3. On the said date i.e. 17.05.2016, PW-1 was partly crossexamined and remaining cross-examination of PW-1 was deferred for 15.07.2016. Again, the matter was adjourned on the request of learned counsel for the appellant/defendant on 02.09.2016. The long story short, final opportunity was granted to the appellant/defendant to cross-examine PW-1 on 12.07.2017, but even the said was not availed and eventually, the defendant was proceeded ex-parte and finally the ex-parte judgment dated 08.09.2017 was passed.

4. This led to the appellant/defendant filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC alongwith application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, for condonation of delay. The said applications came to be dismissed by the learned Trial Court vide impugned order dated 04.12.2018.

5. Suffice to state that the learned Trial Court found that no sufficient cause had been explained by the appellant/defendant for filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC, after a delay of 245 days. The only reason that was advanced by the appellant/defendant was that the previous counsel Mr. Ajay Kumar Jha was unresponsive and was guilty of gross professional misconduct who failed to timely inform the appellant/defendant about the stages of the cases, and resulting in adverse orders. The learned Trial Court found no merits in the said submissions and accordingly, the applications were dismissed.

6. There is certainly no need to dictate or write a long thesis on the subject. The crux of the matter is that even as per the appellant/defendant, the knowledge that ex-parte judgment/decree dated 08.09.2017 had been passed was acquired on 15.12.2017 and yet the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC was moved on 22.05.2018.

7. There is no explanation as to why the appellant/defendant waited for such a long time, after availing the certified copies on 03.04.2018, to file the applications after more than a month. The whole approach of the appellant/defendant smacks of his mala-fide intentions to delay the proceedings at every stage of the matter.

8. In view of the foregoing discussion, the present appeal is hereby dismissed. The pending applications are also disposed of.

DHARMESH SHARMA, J. APRIL 24, 2025/SP/sa