LegalAware
LegalAware.ai
EMPOWERING LEGAL AWARENESS

Bhivchandra Shankar More v. Balu Gangaram More

Civil Appeal · 2019 INSC 643Decided 7 May 2019
Civil Appeal No. 4669 of 2019
Justice R. Banumathi · Justice R. Subhash Reddy

Background

In a 2007 partition suit, an ex-parte decree was passed against the appellant and others after suit summons was received by a relative who allegedly never informed them. They first filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree, which was dismissed in 2010; they appealed that dismissal, but withdrew the appeal three years later and, the very next day, filed a fresh regular appeal against the original ex-parte decree itself, seeking condonation of a nearly five-year delay. The Bombay High Court held that the two remedies (the Order IX Rule 13 application and the regular appeal) must be pursued simultaneously, not one after the other, and refused to condone the delay.

Decision Breakdown

The Supreme Court held that Order IX Rule 13 CPC and a regular appeal under Section 96(2) CPC serve different purposes and are not mutually exclusive: a defendant who loses an Order IX Rule 13 application is not thereby barred from separately appealing the decree on merits. It held that the High Court's rule that the two remedies must be pursued "simultaneously" and not "consecutively" cannot be applied rigidly; delay can still be condoned unless the litigant has acted with gross negligence, bad faith, or deliberate dilatory tactics, none of which were shown here. Since the appellants had been actively pursuing legal remedies throughout (not sitting idle) and denying them a hearing on merits would permanently cost them their share in joint family property, the Court treated the time spent on the Order IX Rule 13 proceedings as "sufficient cause," set aside the High Court's judgment, condoned the delay, and restored the appeal for the first appellate court to decide on its merits.

Lesson Learnt

Pursuing one legal remedy against an ex-parte decree (such as an application to set it aside) and later appealing the decree itself is not automatically treated as an abuse of process: courts take a liberal view of "sufficient cause" for delay so that genuine litigants are not shut out from a hearing on merits due to procedural missteps.

Official source (sci.gov.in)View Judgment (PDF)

More rulings in Civil Procedure

Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Smt Nisha Sharma vs. M/S Intec Capital Limited and Ors

The Court held that because the property had already been specifically identified in the pending execution case before the transfer happened, the transfer remained subject to the execution proceedings under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, and didn't place the share beyond the lender's reach. It also found the appellant couldn't reopen the same ownership argument a second time, since an identical objection had already been rejected earlier and not appealed, and that the surrounding facts (payment timing, continued family occupation, auction bought by a relative) suggested the transfer was intended to defeat the lender's claim. The appeal was dismissed and the auction sale of the guarantor's half-share was upheld.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Shakeel Qureshi & Ors. vs. Rashid Qureshi & Ors.

The Court held that since the plaintiffs' own claims were entirely built on the MoU, the MoU's exclusionary jurisdiction clause (Clause 10, conferring jurisdiction only on Bareilly courts) had to be examined and applied. It rejected the plaintiffs' "approbate and reprobate" argument (that defendants couldn't rely on the MoU in other suits yet deny Delhi's jurisdiction here), finding the defendants' conduct in earlier, differently-framed suits didn't amount to such inconsistency. The plaint was returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC to be filed before a court of competent jurisdiction at Bareilly, without any opinion expressed on the merits of the fraud/breach allegations.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

M/S Siddhivinayak Coal Carriers Pvt. Ltd. vs. Coal India Limited & Ors.

The Division Bench held that an appeal under Section 13 of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 only lies against orders specifically listed in Order XLIII of the CPC or Section 37 of the Arbitration Act, relying on Supreme Court authority (Kandla Export Corporation) confirming this is an exhaustive, not illustrative, list. Since an order converting a summary suit into a regular suit isn't among the orders listed in Order XLIII, the appeal was dismissed as not maintainable.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Ramesh vs. Smt. Geeta

The High Court agreed with the lower courts that the document recorded only a loan transaction, not a sale, so the appellant's argument about an illegal/void sale (under Section 23 of the Contract Act) didn't apply. Since the respondent was relying on her own allotment rights rather than enforcing the disputed document, and the appeal really just disputed how the evidence had been weighed, no substantial legal question arose, and the second appeal was dismissed.

Decided 6 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Pooja Singh vs. Gulab Devi Prasad Singh

While the appeal was pending, the parties settled the matter in execution proceedings for Rs. 9,50,000, and part of that settlement had already been acted upon. Rs. 1,98,000 had been paid to the Plaintiff, and the balance of Rs. 7,52,000 had been deposited in the High Court. The Court held that the Defendant could not go back on a settlement that had been acted upon, and that no monetary dispute remained for adjudication. The Court directed that the deposited balance be released to the Plaintiff and disposed of the appeal in terms of the settlement.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case
Civil ProcedureDelhi High Court

Richmond Global School vs. Shri Vijay Kumar Jain

The Court considered the legal meaning of "sufficient cause", explaining that it requires the party to show that it was not negligent or lacking in bona fides, and that the facts must support the exercise of discretion judiciously. Finding that the District Judge's view was correct, the High Court held that the appeal was devoid of merit and dismissed it, with no order as to costs.

Decided 5 Oct 2026Read case