{"id":178474,"date":"2017-12-27T11:28:52","date_gmt":"2017-12-27T05:58:52","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=178474"},"modified":"2017-12-27T11:28:52","modified_gmt":"2017-12-27T05:58:52","slug":"application-seeking-condonation-delay-main-proceeding-cannot-clubbed-together-along-adduced-evidence-order-9-rule-13-cpc","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/27\/application-seeking-condonation-delay-main-proceeding-cannot-clubbed-together-along-adduced-evidence-order-9-rule-13-cpc\/","title":{"rendered":"Application seeking condonation of delay and main proceeding cannot be clubbed together along with adduced evidence under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC"},"content":{"rendered":"

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir:<\/strong> The Bench of Alok Aradhe J. recently addressed a revision petition wherein the petitioner challenged the decision of the trial court in allowing the application preferred by the respondent under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.<\/p>\n

The facts of the case are that the petitioner had filed a petition under Section 13 of the J&K Hindu Marriage seeking dissolution of marriage following which the respondent filed an application for transferring the proceeding to the Court of the Principal District Judge which was allowed and the parties had been directed to be present at the said Court on 20\/10\/2011. Further on, the petition was heard with the respondent proceeding ex parte subsequent to which an ex parte decree was passed. The petitioner had informed the army authorities about the dissolution of the marriage and the army authorities then went on to intimate the respondent about the decree of dissolution. Consequently the respondent had applied for extension of time in filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree belatedly which was allowed by the trial court.<\/p>\n

The counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Court should have appreciated the fact that the order for transferring the case was passed in the presence of both parties and that both parties had been directed to present themselves before the said Court on 20\/10\/2011. The counsel also contended that despite the authorities having informed the respondent about the dissolution, it took the respondent a period of 1 year to file an application seeking extension of time for filing the application. The last contention by the counsel for the petitioner was that the petitioner was not given any opportunity to file a reply or adduce any evidence in the proceeding under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.<\/p>\n

The counsel for the respondent on the other hand contended that the respondent had supported the order of the trial court and that the application seeking condonation of delay as well as the proceeding under Order 9 Rule 13 had been clubbed together and evidence had been recorded jointly in both the proceedings as was allowed in Manjeet Singh<\/em> v. Manjeet Kour<\/em> , 2001 SLJ 439 and in Darshana Devi<\/em> v. Bodh Raj,<\/em> 2014 (2) JKJ 585 [HC].<\/p>\n

The Court held that the trial court should have first decided the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and subsequently proceeded to deciding the application by recording the evidence separately. The Court held that severe injustice had been done to the petitioner by clubbing both the proceedings and recording the evidence. The Court agreed that the petitioner should have been allowed to lead evidence in the main proceeding which was initiated by the respondent and hence, suffered from an error apparent on the face of the record. The impugned order also suffered from jurisdictional infirmity which couldn\u2019t be sustained in the eyes of the law. Hence, the impugned order was quashed. [Harjeet Singh v. Taranjeet Kour,\u00a0 2017 SCC OnLine J&K 746<\/a>, order dated 18.12.2017]<\/p>\n

\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

High Court of Jammu and Kashmir: The Bench of Alok Aradhe J. recently addressed a revision petition wherein the petitioner challenged the <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":91,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[26954,2552,2521,26944],"class_list":["post-178474","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-clubbing-of-proceedings","tag-Condonation_of_delay","tag-Evidence","tag-order-9-rule-13-cpc"],"yoast_head":"\nApplication seeking condonation of delay and main proceeding cannot be clubbed together along with adduced evidence under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/27\/application-seeking-condonation-delay-main-proceeding-cannot-clubbed-together-along-adduced-evidence-order-9-rule-13-cpc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Application seeking condonation of delay and main proceeding cannot be clubbed together along with adduced evidence under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"High Court of Jammu and Kashmir: The Bench of Alok Aradhe J. recently addressed a revision petition wherein the petitioner challenged the\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/27\/application-seeking-condonation-delay-main-proceeding-cannot-clubbed-together-along-adduced-evidence-order-9-rule-13-cpc\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"SCC Times\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2017-12-27T05:58:52+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/JK-High-Court.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1330\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"887\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Saba\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"2 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/27\/application-seeking-condonation-delay-main-proceeding-cannot-clubbed-together-along-adduced-evidence-order-9-rule-13-cpc\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/27\/application-seeking-condonation-delay-main-proceeding-cannot-clubbed-together-along-adduced-evidence-order-9-rule-13-cpc\/\",\"name\":\"Application seeking condonation of delay and main proceeding cannot be clubbed together along with adduced evidence under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2017-12-27T05:58:52+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/27\/application-seeking-condonation-delay-main-proceeding-cannot-clubbed-together-along-adduced-evidence-order-9-rule-13-cpc\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/27\/application-seeking-condonation-delay-main-proceeding-cannot-clubbed-together-along-adduced-evidence-order-9-rule-13-cpc\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/27\/application-seeking-condonation-delay-main-proceeding-cannot-clubbed-together-along-adduced-evidence-order-9-rule-13-cpc\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Application seeking condonation of delay and main proceeding cannot be clubbed together along with adduced evidence under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/\",\"name\":\"SCC Times\",\"description\":\"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785\",\"name\":\"Saba\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Saba\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Application seeking condonation of delay and main proceeding cannot be clubbed together along with adduced evidence under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC | SCC Times","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/27\/application-seeking-condonation-delay-main-proceeding-cannot-clubbed-together-along-adduced-evidence-order-9-rule-13-cpc\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Application seeking condonation of delay and main proceeding cannot be clubbed together along with adduced evidence under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC","og_description":"High Court of Jammu and Kashmir: The Bench of Alok Aradhe J. recently addressed a revision petition wherein the petitioner challenged the","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/27\/application-seeking-condonation-delay-main-proceeding-cannot-clubbed-together-along-adduced-evidence-order-9-rule-13-cpc\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2017-12-27T05:58:52+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1330,"height":887,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2015\/10\/JK-High-Court.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Saba","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Saba","Est. reading time":"2 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/27\/application-seeking-condonation-delay-main-proceeding-cannot-clubbed-together-along-adduced-evidence-order-9-rule-13-cpc\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/27\/application-seeking-condonation-delay-main-proceeding-cannot-clubbed-together-along-adduced-evidence-order-9-rule-13-cpc\/","name":"Application seeking condonation of delay and main proceeding cannot be clubbed together along with adduced evidence under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2017-12-27T05:58:52+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/27\/application-seeking-condonation-delay-main-proceeding-cannot-clubbed-together-along-adduced-evidence-order-9-rule-13-cpc\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/27\/application-seeking-condonation-delay-main-proceeding-cannot-clubbed-together-along-adduced-evidence-order-9-rule-13-cpc\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2017\/12\/27\/application-seeking-condonation-delay-main-proceeding-cannot-clubbed-together-along-adduced-evidence-order-9-rule-13-cpc\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Application seeking condonation of delay and main proceeding cannot be clubbed together along with adduced evidence under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/","name":"SCC Times","description":"Bringing you the Best Analytical Legal News","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/e8e76b10dfc9c0d576324bfdbb2c2785","name":"Saba","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a815285315cd85d8b3246c60ed8ed99825949c1b85b370c49212daa54ededa98?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Saba"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_2\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":202271,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/09\/27\/application-for-discovery-of-documents-under-order-xi-rule-12-of-cpc-filed-after-the-stage-of-settlement-of-issues-is-non-maintainable\/","url_meta":{"origin":178474,"position":0},"title":"Application for discovery of documents under Order XI Rule 12 of CPC filed after the stage of settlement of issues is non-maintainable","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 27, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Jharkhand High Court: A Single Judge bench comprising of Chandrashekhar, J. dismissed a civil writ petition filed against the order of trial court dismissing petitioner\u2019s application for discovery of documents. In the present case, the petitioner was the defendant in suit in trial court; where he had filed an application\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":211647,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/03\/08\/del-hc-wifes-application-for-setting-aside-ex-parte-divorce-decree-rejected-in-absence-of-application-for-condonation-of-more-than-4-years-delay\/","url_meta":{"origin":178474,"position":1},"title":"Del HC | Wife’s application for setting aside ex-parte divorce decree rejected in absence of application for condonation of more than 4 years’ delay","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 8, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court:\u00a0A Bench of G.S. Sistani and Jyoti Singh, JJ., dismissed an appeal filed by the appellant-wife against the order of the family court rejecting her application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree of divorce passed in favour of her husband. The parties\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":219017,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/09\/02\/mp-hc-petitioners-allowed-to-file-fresh-application-for-setting-aside-abatement-before-the-trial-court-on-account-of-them-being-rustic-and-illiterate-villagers\/","url_meta":{"origin":178474,"position":2},"title":"MP HC | Petitioners allowed to file fresh application for setting aside abatement before the trial Court on account of them being \u201crustic and illiterate villagers\u201d","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"September 2, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Madhya Pradesh High Court: Nandita Dubey, J., allowed the petitioner to file a fresh application for bringing in legal representatives along with an application for condonation of delay and an application for setting aside abatement before the trial court. The plaintiffs filed an application under Order 22 Rule 3 CPC\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":202952,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2018\/10\/01\/withdrawal-of-a-suit-can-be-allowed-under-order-xxiii-rule-3-of-cpc-if-the-defect-is-formal-in-nature-and-such-that-has-no-effect-on-merits-of-the-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":178474,"position":3},"title":"Withdrawal of a suit can be allowed under Order XXIII Rule 3 of CPC if the defect is formal in nature and such that has no effect on merits of the case","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"October 1, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"Jammu & Kashmir High Court: A Single Judge bench comprising of Rashid Ali Dar, J. while dealing with a civil revision petition filed against the order of trial court allowing withdrawal of suit, upheld the trial court order on the finding that there were sufficient grounds for granting leave for\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":331095,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2024\/09\/19\/filing-written-statement-after-expiry-30-days-can-accepted-if-there-is-application-writing-for-condonation-of-delay-madras-hc\/","url_meta":{"origin":178474,"position":4},"title":"Filing of written statement after expiry of 30 days can be accepted only if there is an application in writing for condonation of delay: Madras HC","author":"Apoorva","date":"September 19, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"If the power is given to do a certain thing in a certain way, the thing must be done in that way.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"Madras High Court","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2024\/02\/Madras-High-Court.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":358545,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/01\/owner-entitled-to-return-of-original-documents-under-order-13-rule-9-cpc-telangana-high-court\/","url_meta":{"origin":178474,"position":5},"title":"Who is entitled to return of Original Documents, party who produced it or the owner? Telangana HC clarifies Order 13 Rule 9 CPC","author":"Editor","date":"September 1, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The petitioner had averred that the intent of Order 13 Rule 9 of the CPC is to ensure that documents, once they have served their purpose in litigation and are no longer required by the Court, should be returned to their rightful owners.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"return of original documents","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/return-of-original-documents.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/return-of-original-documents.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/return-of-original-documents.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/return-of-original-documents.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178474","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/91"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=178474"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/178474\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=178474"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=178474"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=178474"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}