Chattisgarh High Court
Jay Kishan Sahu vs Ramkali on 25 August, 2025
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
WP227 No. 737 of 2024
1 - Jay Kishan Sahu S/o Late Shri Dauram Sahu Aged About 36 Years Presently
R/o Sirpur Road Kasdol, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.),...
(Defendant No. 1) ... Petitioner/defendant No.1
versus
1 - Ramkali D/o Shri Kholbehra Satnami Aged About 29 Years R/o Indira Colony
Kasdol, Tahsil - Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.),..(Plaintiff)
2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector Balodabazar, Balodabazar-
Bhatapara (C.G.),...(Defendant No. 2) ---- Respondents
For Petitioner/ : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate
Defendant No.1
For Respondent No.1/ : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate
Plaintiff
For State/Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey
Order on Board
25.08.2025
1. The petitioner/defendant No.1 has challenged the order dated 15.07.2024
passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Balodabazar,
District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal
No.08/2022 whereby the appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC
was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-1
Kasdol, in M.J.C. No.04/2021 dated 05.12.2022, was affirmed.
2. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant
No.1, would submit that Civil Suit No.16-A/2017 was filed by respondent
No.1/plaintiff for the specific performance of the contract. He would further
submit that after the service of summons, the petitioner appeared before
the learned Trial Court regularly between 06.03.2019 to 29.11.2019. He
would also submit that on 13.12.2019, when the civil suit was set for the
plaintiff's evidence, no one appeared for the petitioner, and he was
proceeded ex parte. He would contend that the ex parte judgment and
decree were passed on 04.02.2020. He would further contend that the
petitioner was served with the notice of execution on 07.06.2021.
Thereafter, the petitioner collected the certified copy of the judgment and
decree on 16.06.2021 and moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of
CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for
condonation of delay on 30.06.2021. He would also contend that there was
a delay of one year and five months in filing the application under Order 9
Rule 13 of CPC, and on the ground of delay, the learned Trial Court
rejected the application. He would argue that the Courts below ought to
have extended the benefit of judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, wherein, it
was clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand
excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Section 23(4) and 29A
of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and any other laws, which
prescribe periods of limitation for instituting proceedings. He would further
argue that the petitioner preferred a miscellaneous appeal, and the same
was also dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2024. He would also argue that
the petitioner had explained the delay properly in the application. He would
pray to allow the present petition.
3. On the other hand, Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for
respondent No.1/plaintiff, would oppose the submissions made by Mr.
Sharma. He would submit that though the petitioner was aware of the
pending civil proceedings before the learned Civil Court but failed to
participate; therefore, he was proceeded ex-parte and an ex-parte
judgment and decree was passed. He would contend that the petitioner
kept mum for a period of one year and five months, and thereafter, he
approached the Court below along with an application under Order 9 Rule
13 of the CPC. He would further contend that as the petitioner could not
explain the delay properly, his application was rejected, and the findings
recorded by the learned Civil Court have been affirmed by the learned
Appellate Court. He would contend that the petition deserves to be
dismissed.
4. Mr. Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent
No.2, would support the orders passed by the learned Courts below.
5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the
documents placed on the record.
6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C)
No.3 of 2020 in para 5 (IV) held as under:-
"5(IV). It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020
till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the
periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the
Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the
Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of
Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any
other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for
instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or
tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings."
A bare reading of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court would make it clear that the delay from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022
was excluded in computing the period of limitation in any proceedings,
where the law of limitation applies.
7. In the present case, the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte on 13.12.2019,
and an ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 04.02.2020. The
petitioner was served with the execution notice on 07.06.2021. He obtained
the certified copy on 16.06.2021 and immediately thereafter moved an
application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC along with an application
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 30.06.2021.
8. Learned Trial Court failed to consider the order passed by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020, wherein the
Hon'ble Supreme Court has relaxed the period of limitation in initiating any
proceedings where the law of limitation applies.
9. Considering the above-discussed facts and the order passed by the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020, the
orders passed by the Appellate Court in Misc. Civil Appeal No.08/2022
dated 15.07.2024 and the learned Civil Judge, Class-1 Kasdol in M.J.C.
No.04/2021 dated 05.12.2022 are hereby set aside.
10.The matter is remitted back to the learned Trial Court to decide the
application moved by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC afresh
on its own merits.
11.The parties are directed to appear before the learned Civil Court on the
14th of October, 2025.
12.The record be sent back forthwith.
13.In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of.
Sd/-
(Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge
Rekha
