M.G. Ravishankar v. Venkatachalam Vankina
Case brief
What is this about?
Telangana HC CMA 629/2023, decided 27-01-2025 (judgment per Justice N. Tukaramji; bench with Justice P. Sam Koshy): dismissal upheld of Order IX Rule 13 CPC petition to set aside 30.01.2019 ex parte decree in Order 37 summary suit O.S.No.347/2018 (Rs.53,47,323/- at 18% p.a.; respondent Venkatachalam Vankina; appellants M.G. Ravishankar & M.Sumithra); deemed-service presumption Rule 3(2) Order 37 CPC r/w Section 27 General Clauses Act 1897; summons received by defendants' son at Mysore address presumed proper service; appellants silent thereafter; 'special circumstances' under Rule 4 Order 37 not made out; Mahesh Kumar Joshi v Madan Singh Negi (2015) 12 SCC 254 applied; trial court justified dismissing set-aside prayer; appeal dismissed, no order as to costs; counsel J. C. Francis (appellants), Jyothisri Vankina (respondent).
What did the court decide?
Rule 4 of Order 37 CPC invests power in the Court to set aside the decree under special circumstances; neither the CPC nor the Limitation Act specifies any period of limitation for such an application, so a specific application seeking condonation of delay may not be required — but the petitioner must discharge the onus of explaining the peculiar circumstances, including the delay.