Indrapriyan v. Bank of Barad (E-Vijaya Bank)
Case brief
What is this about?
Madras High Court, CRP.No.6297 of 2025 and CMP.No.31238 of 2025 (P.B. Balaji J., decision date 08.01.2026). Setting aside of ex-parte decree — Order 9 Rule 13 CPC / Order XXXVII Rule 4 CPC — Section 115 CPC revision. Held: Trial Court (II Additional City Civil Court, Chennai) erred in dismissing the Order 9 Rule 13 petition (I.A.No.3 of 2024) solely because one petition covered both setting aside of the ex-parte decree and condonation of delay, when delay stood already condoned in I.A.No.1 of 2023 (order dated 14.08.2024, costs Rs.2,000/- paid 19.08.2024). Revision allowed; ex-parte decree in O.S.No.1778 of 2023 set aside; trial expedited with suit to be disposed of preferably by 30.06.2026. Keywords: ex-parte decree, Order 9 Rule 13, condonation of delay, Order XXXVII Rule 4 summary procedure, Section 115 CPC revision, Bank of Baroda respondent conceding apparent error.
What did the court decide?
Civil Revision Petition allowed; order in I.A.No.3 of 2024 dated 22.10.2025 set aside; ex-parte decree in O.S.No.1778 of 2023 set aside; Trial Court directed to complete pleadings within two weeks, frame issues within one week thereafter, expedite trial and dispose of the suit preferably on or before 30.06.2026; connected Miscellaneous Petition closed; no costs.