SC took the view that rule 9, rule 9, cannot be regulated automatically and is only permissible if there is sufficient reason to repeal the ex parte decree.

In the recent Subodh Kumar v Shamim Ahmed case, a tenant filed a motion to repeal an ex parte decree against him, which was dismissed by the court on the grounds that the tenant failed to provide bail in accordance with the provisions of Section 17 of the court Provincial Small Cause Courts Act of 1887. The High Court ordered the court to reconsider the motion in accordance with Act 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and Section 5 of the Restrictions Act.

The High Court’s order was appealed, ruling that the tenant’s motion under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC did not comply with Section 17 of the 1887 Act while the motion was inapplicable. Furthermore, the tenant questioned did not deposit the full amount that was due on 08/25/1998 in accordance with Section 30 (2) of Act No. 13 of 1972, and finally the court found that the rental deposit pursuant to Section 30 (2) of the 1972 Act will not be treated as a deposit for the purposes of a reservation under Section 17 of the 1887 Act in the present matter.

The court also found that the application pursuant to Section 9, Rule 13, to repeal the Exparte Decree or to review the judgment cannot be automatically approved even if the proviso of Section 17 is met. Compliance with the reservation to § 17 is a prerequisite for maintaining the application according to Article 9, Rule 13. The application according to Article 9, Rule 13, can only be admitted if there is sufficient reason for the repeal of the Exparte Decree. The present is a case in which no sufficient reason has been established for the exparte decree to be repealed.

In light of all the arguments, the court found that the tenant did not have sufficient grounds to admit the application under Regulation 9, Rule 13, and that the High Court made a mistake in interfering with the court’s order.

Comments are closed.