BOGIDHOLA TEA AND TRADING CO. LTD. AND ANR. versus HIRA LAL SOMANI

BOGIDHOLA TEA AND TRADING CO. LTD. AND ANR. versus HIRA LAL SOMANI

It was the duty of the trial court to consider if the suit was barred by limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, even when the defendant did not appear or raise the issue, and the plaintiff was required to prove its case; thus, the ex-parte decree was set aside.

Parties
Appellants: Bogidhola Tea and Trading Co. Ltd. and Anr.; Respondent: Hira Lal Somani
Jurisdiction
India
Judgment Date
07 December 2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauhati High Court Judgment Refusing to Condone Delay and Dismissing Appeal Against Ex Parte Decree
Outcome
Appeal disposed of. Ex-parte decree set aside. Order subject to payment of specified sums.
Legal Topics
Ex Parte Decree, Limitation, Order 8 Rule 10 CPC, Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, Condonation of Delay
Civil Procedure Ex Parte Decree Limitation Order 8 Rule 10 CPC Order 9 Rule 13 CPC Condonation of Delay

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bogidhola Tea and Trading Co. Ltd. and Anr.

Appellants

Hira Lal Somani

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauhati High Court Judgment Refusing to Condone Delay and Dismissing Appeal Against Ex Parte Decree

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court could pass an ex-parte decree under Order 8 Rule 10 CPC without the plaintiff adducing evidence and without considering limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in refusing to condone the delay in filing appeal against the ex-parte decree

Ratio Decidendi

It was the duty of the trial court to consider if the suit was barred by limitation under Section 3 of the Limitation Act, 1963, even when the defendant did not appear or raise the issue, and the plaintiff was required to prove its case; thus, the ex-parte decree was set aside.

Court Disposition

Appeal disposed of. Ex-parte decree set aside. Order subject to payment of specified sums.

Orders

  • Ex-parte decree dated 19.4.1990 set aside.
  • Appellants to deposit Rs. 1 lakh before the Executing Court, subject to outcome of the suit.