This second appeal was dismissed at the motion stage. The High Court held that the appellant failed to substantiate allegations of counsel misconduct, failed to show due diligence in questioning the counsel, and exceeded limitation without condonation.
The appeal was dismissed at the motion stage itself.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Second Appeal No. 443 /2015
Prabhakar, S/o. Santosh Lodhi, Aged About 62 Years, R/o. Village Barbaspur, At Present Residing at Shankar Nagar Khamardih, Raipur Chhattisgarh, Tahsil, P.O. Police Station & District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
---- Appellant Versus
---- Respondents
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellant : Mr. R.N.Jha, Advocate. For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Aditya Bhardwaj, Advocate For Respondent No.2 : Mr. Anupam Dubey, Dy. Govt. Advocate --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri
Order On Board
01/04/2016
2
his counsel was looking after the case. On 24.03.2006 no one appeared on behalf of the appellant/ defendant, therefore, the case was proceeded exparte and exparte decree was passed on 12.05.2006. Subsequently, on 26.09.2011, an application was filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the judgment & decree on the ground that the case was handed over to his counsel Shri V.K.Sharma, however, he did not inform the dates and eventually the exparte decree was passed. The said application to set aside the judgment & decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was dismissed by the trial Court, against which the first appeal was preferred which too was dismissed, therefore, the second appeal.
3
could not contact the counsel. It is further alleged that on the blank papers, the counsel obtained the signature of the defendant and assured the appellant/ defendant that he will take care of the case and his presence is not required. It is further alleged that after the notice of execution was received on 09.09.2011, the party contacted his counsel, however, he expressed his inability to say anything. Thereafter, the application to set aside the exparte decree was moved on 26.09.2011.
Sd/- (Goutam Bhaduri) Judge
Ashok
3 issues framed by the court
Whether a second appeal preferring to challenge the dismissal of an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC tainted by excessive delay and unsubstantiated allegations can be admitted.
Whether the appellant's allegations of counsel misconduct provide a sufficient reasonable ground to set aside a default decree.
Whether the second appeal is barred by limitation due to a delay of 86 days without a condonation application.
2 provisions across 1 enactments
Prabhakar Lodhi
Sheetal Lalwani
State Of Chhattisgarh
Goutam Bhaduri
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
