Dwarika Prasad (D) Thr. Lrs. Vs. Prithvi Raj Singh

  1. Home
  2. /
  3. Publications
  4. /
  5. Case Snippets
  6. /
  7. Dwarika Prasad (D)...

In Dwarika Prasad (D) Thr. Lrs. vs. Prithvi Raj Singh, 2024 INSC 1030, the Supreme Court held that filing a separate application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 is unnecessary when seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, as such applications inherently address the requirements for condonation. The case arose from an ex-parte decree where the defendant’s restoration application under Order 9 Rule 13 and Section 151 CPC was allowed by the Trial Court but overturned by the Additional District Judge and upheld by the High Court for lack of a separate condonation plea. Reversing these findings, the Supreme Court emphasized that procedural technicalities should not defeat substantive justice, citing Rafiq vs. Munshilal (1981), and restored the Trial Court’s decision, allowing the appeal and simplifying the process for setting aside ex-parte decrees.

Tags:

Let us help you!

If you need any help, please feel free to contact us. We will get back to you within one business day. Alternatively, if you're in a hurry, you can call us now

+91 9052538538
info@karavadi.in

Recent Case Snippets

Husband’s consent and signature are immaterial for the wife to apply for the passport, says the Madras High Court.

In J Revathy v. Government of India (2025 LiveLaw (Mad) 210), the Madras High Court held that a wife does not need her husband’s authorisation or signature to apply for a passport. Justice Anand Venkatesh criticised the Passport Authority’s regressive insistence on such consent during pending divorce proceedings, affirming that Read more »

Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., 2024 INSC 757

In Banshidhar Construction Pvt. Ltd. vs. Bharat Coking Coal Ltd., 2024 INSC 757, the Hon’ble Supreme Court ruled that the rejection of the appellant’s bid for failing to submit a Power of Attorney, while allowing another bidder to rectify a similar deficiency and awarding the contract to them, was arbitrary Read more »

Moral Responsibility Alone Insufficient for Criminal Liability, Charge or Control Over Child Essential to Punish under S. 75 of the JJ Act

In S.C. Narang Vs. State (NCT Of Delhi), 2025 INSC 688, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that Section 75 of the Juvenile Justice Act, 2015 cannot be used to punish Chairman of the school's Managing Committee as he neither has actual charge of the child nor control over him/her. The Read more »

Disclaimer

The Rules and Regulations set forth by the Bar Council of India under Advocates Act, 1961 prohibit Advocates or Law Firms from advertising or soliciting work through public domain communications. This website is intended solely to provide information. Karavadi & Associates (“K&A”) does not aim to advertise or solicit clients through this platform. K & A disclaim any responsibility for decisions made by readers/visitors based solely on the content of this website.

By clicking 'AGREE,' readers/visitors agree and acknowledge that the information provided herein (a) does not constitute advertising or solicitation, and (b) is intended solely for their understanding of K & A services. By continuing to use this site, you consent to the use of cookies on your device as outlined in our Cookie Policy.