Indore (Madhya Pradesh): The Madhya Pradesh High Court set aside lower court orders that dismissed a property owner's plea against an ex parte decree, ruling that a litigant should not suffer due to a lawyer's omission.
Justice Vinay Saraf partially allowed a civil revision petition filed by Deepak Afle, condoning a 1,093-day delay in filing an application to set aside an ex parte judgment, subject to a cost of Rs 50,000.
The dispute arose from a 2017 specific performance suit filed by Dharam Developers and Finvest Limited regarding a land parcel in Machal, Indore, stemming from a 2012 sale agreement.
After notices returned unserved, the trial court ordered service via publication in a newspaper and subsequently passed an ex parte decree on Aug 8, 2019, after the defendant failed to appear.
The defendant stated he learned of the decree on Nov 27, 2019, through execution proceedings and engaged a lawyer who failed to advise him to file an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
When that lawyer permanently shifted to Kerala in July 2022, the defendant engaged new counsel and filed the application. Lower courts previously dismissed the plea under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for lack of bona fides.
The High Court emphasised that the length of delay is secondary to the acceptability of an explanation, noting litigants rely entirely on legal counsel. It also factored in Covid-19 pandemic extensions mandated by the Supreme Court.
The matter has been remanded to the trial court to hear the defendant's application on its merits.
