Court Advocates Liberal Approach to Procedural Delays, Remands Case for Merits Review
In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court has set aside an ex parte decree and remanded the case back to the trial court for a fresh decision on merits. The judgment, delivered by Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, emphasizes a liberal approach in dealing with procedural delays, ensuring that litigants are not deprived of an opportunity to contest cases on merits due to technicalities or counsel negligence.
The appeals were filed by Ramkrishn Sahu and others against separate orders dated January 5, 2022, by the trial court, which dismissed applications under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) solely on the grounds of delay. The appellant contended that the delay was caused by the previous counsel's negligence, who failed to inform him of the proceedings and did not file an appeal on time. The High Court found that the delay was not intentional and stemmed from the counsel's oversight.
The case involves a dispute over agricultural lands, with the plaintiff, Kamal Prasad Kasar, alleging forgery of a power of attorney by defendant No. 2, Jairam Dubey, leading to unauthorized sale deeds. The trial court had earlier ruled in favor of the plaintiff, relying on expert testimony that confirmed the power of attorney was forged. However, the appellants were denied the chance to contest this finding due to their absence, attributed to counsel's fault.
Justice Guru cited Supreme Court precedents, including Rafiq v. Munshilal and Dwarika Prasad v. Prithvi Raj Singh, underscoring that litigants should not suffer for their counsel's mistakes. The High Court noted that procedural rules are meant to serve justice, not impede it, and that the merits of a case should not be overshadowed by procedural technicalities.
The judgment remands the case to the trial court with a directive to consider the applications under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC afresh and decide on their merits within 30 days from the parties' appearance, scheduled for April 21, 2026.
The ruling reinforces the judiciary's commitment to ensuring fair trial opportunities, emphasizing that procedural delays should not obstruct the path to justice.
Bottom Line:
Application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside an ex parte decree must be considered on merits and with a liberal approach. A litigant should not suffer due to the fault or negligence of their counsel.
Statutory provision(s): Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC, Section 5 of the Limitation Act, Indian Evidence Act Section 45
Ramkrishn Sahu v. Kamal Prasad Kasar, (Chhattisgarh) : Law Finder Doc id # 2880124
