{"id":247713,"date":"2021-04-27T17:59:45","date_gmt":"2021-04-27T12:29:45","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/?p=247713"},"modified":"2021-04-30T13:50:10","modified_gmt":"2021-04-30T08:20:10","slug":"sufficient-cause","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/sufficient-cause\/","title":{"rendered":"Del HC | Scope of Or. 9 R. 13 CPC application: Whether summons duly served and\/or whether defendant was prevented by ‘sufficient cause’ from appearing? Explained"},"content":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: <\/strong>Manoj Kumar Ohri, J., expressed that<\/p>\n

\n

\u201cSufficient Cause\u201d is an elastic expression and no hard and fast guidelines are prescribed.<\/strong><\/span><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

In the present matter, Judgment dated 01-02-2019 was sought to be set aside as well as condonation of delay of 582 days.<\/p>\n

Factual Matrix<\/u><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Permanent Injunction restraining infringement and passing off of trademark, copyright, damages, delivery up etc. was sought in the instant suit.<\/p>\n

It was averred that the plaintiff\u2019s predecessor had started the business of selling sweets in the year 1912 and trademark\/label \u2018HIRA SWEETS\u2019 was conceived and adopted by the plaintiffs\u2019 predecessor in the year 1960. Plaintiff 1 was the registered proprietor of the original artistic work \u2018HIRA SWEETS\u2019 and it became the registered proprietor of the mark and device \u2018HIRA SWEETS\u2019 under Classes 29, 30, 32 and 43 of the Trade Marks Act, 1999 in 2016.<\/p>\n

Defendant was served with the summons and after availing various opportunities and filing written statement, stopped appearing before the Court.<\/p>\n

On 01-02-2019, Court had come to the conclusion that the defendant had no real prospect of defending the claim. Therefore, the suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.<\/p>\n

Analysis, Law and Decision<\/u><\/strong><\/span><\/h3>\n

Order IX Rule 13 CPC<\/em><\/span><\/strong><\/p>\n

Bench stated that insofar as the scope of an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was concerned, Court has to see whether the summons in the suits were duly served or not and\/or whether the defendant was prevented by any \u201csufficient cause\u201d<\/strong> from appearing when the suit was called for hearing.<\/p>\n

In the present matter, the defendant was duly served with the summons in the suit and had appeared.<\/p>\n

High Court, in its discretion, has to consider the \u201csufficient cause\u201d in the facts and circumstances of every individual case and in interpreting the said Court has wide discretion.<\/p>\n

As per Article 123 of the Limitation Act, the application for setting aside ex-parte decree should be filed within 30 days of passing the decree.<\/p>\n

Supreme Court in a recent decision of A. Murugesan v. Jamuna Rani<\/em>,(2019) 20 SCC 803<\/a> affirmed its earlier view in G.P. Srivastava v. R.K. Raizada<\/em>, (2000) 3 SCC 54<\/a>.<\/p>\n

In the present case, although the defendant blamed her counsel for his non-appearance which resulted in passing of the decree, however, a perusal of the Judgment dated 01-02-2019 would show that the same was passed after considering the merits of the case.<\/p>\n

Ex-Parte Decree<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

Court noted that the defendant had failed to state that after becoming aware of the passing of the ex-parte<\/em> decree, what steps were taken by it to seek setting aside of the same. Further, the Bench remarked that, it appeared that the defendant preferred to sit over it.<\/p>\n

It was noted that after being aware of the ex-parte decree on 18-07-2019, the defendant took no steps against its counsel for more than 14 \u00bd months when a complaint was stated to be filed and too, two weeks prior to the filing of the captioned applications.<\/p>\n

Hence, in view of the above, Court opined that the action taken seemed to be only an afterthought with the aim of filing the present application.<\/p>\n

Delay in filing of application<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

With regard to the delay of 582 days in filing the application, the defendant explained the same stating that some settlement talks were going on between the parties. But the counsel for the plaintiffs denied any settlement talks.<\/p>\n

Bench opined that the defendant failed to show any \u201csufficient cause\u201d for its absence in the Court. Adding to this it was stated that defendant had also failed to satisfactorily explain the delay of 582 days in filing the application and the explanation placed by the defendant was only an eye-wash.<\/p>\n

Therefore, the application were dismissed in the above-view. [Hira Sweets and Confectionery (P) Ltd. v. Hira Confectioners,\u00a0 2021 SCC OnLine Del 1823<\/b><\/a>, decided on 27-04-2021]<\/p>\n

\n

Advocates before the Court:<\/strong><\/p>\n

For the plaintiffs: Satish Kumar, Advocate<\/p>\n

For the Defendant: B.K. Pandey, Advocate<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Delhi High Court: Manoj Kumar Ohri, J., expressed that \u201cSufficient Cause\u201d is an elastic expression and no hard and fast guidelines are <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":8808,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,10],"tags":[3343,29785,45815,32319,27494],"class_list":["post-247713","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-casebriefs","category-highcourts","tag-ex-parte_decree","tag-law","tag-order-ix-rule-13-cpc","tag-sufficient-cause","tag-summons"],"yoast_head":"\nDel HC | Scope of Or. 9 R. 13 CPC application: Whether summons duly served and\/or whether defendant was prevented by 'sufficient cause' from appearing? Explained | SCC Times<\/title>\n<meta name=\"description\" content=\"Sufficient Cause\" \/>\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\/2021\/04\/27\/sufficient-cause\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Del HC | Scope of Or. 9 R. 13 CPC application: Whether summons duly served and\/or whether defendant was prevented by 'sufficient cause' from appearing? Explained\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Sufficient Cause\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/sufficient-cause\/\" \/>\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=\"2021-04-27T12:29:45+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2021-04-30T08:20:10+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"1329\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"888\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Bhumika Indulia\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"3 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/27\\\/sufficient-cause\\\/#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/27\\\/sufficient-cause\\\/\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"headline\":\"Del HC | Scope of Or. 9 R. 13 CPC application: Whether summons duly served and\\\/or whether defendant was prevented by ‘sufficient cause’ from appearing? Explained\",\"datePublished\":\"2021-04-27T12:29:45+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-04-30T08:20:10+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/27\\\/sufficient-cause\\\/\"},\"wordCount\":663,\"commentCount\":2,\"keywords\":[\"ex-parte decree\",\"law\",\"Order IX Rule 13 CPC\",\"Sufficient Cause\",\"summons\"],\"articleSection\":[\"Case Briefs\",\"High Courts\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/27\\\/sufficient-cause\\\/#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/27\\\/sufficient-cause\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/27\\\/sufficient-cause\\\/\",\"name\":\"Del HC | Scope of Or. 9 R. 13 CPC application: Whether summons duly served and\\\/or whether defendant was prevented by 'sufficient cause' from appearing? Explained | SCC Times\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2021-04-27T12:29:45+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2021-04-30T08:20:10+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\"},\"description\":\"Sufficient Cause\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/27\\\/sufficient-cause\\\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/27\\\/sufficient-cause\\\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/27\\\/sufficient-cause\\\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Del HC | Scope of Or. 9 R. 13 CPC application: Whether summons duly served and\\\/or whether defendant was prevented by ‘sufficient cause’ from appearing? Explained\"}]},{\"@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\\\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a\",\"name\":\"Bhumika Indulia\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/2021\\\/04\\\/Me-150x150.jpg\",\"caption\":\"Bhumika Indulia\"},\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.scconline.com\\\/blog\\\/post\\\/author\\\/editor_1\\\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Del HC | Scope of Or. 9 R. 13 CPC application: Whether summons duly served and\/or whether defendant was prevented by 'sufficient cause' from appearing? Explained | SCC Times","description":"Sufficient Cause","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\/2021\/04\/27\/sufficient-cause\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Del HC | Scope of Or. 9 R. 13 CPC application: Whether summons duly served and\/or whether defendant was prevented by 'sufficient cause' from appearing? Explained","og_description":"Sufficient Cause","og_url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/sufficient-cause\/","og_site_name":"SCC Times","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/scc.online\/","article_published_time":"2021-04-27T12:29:45+00:00","article_modified_time":"2021-04-30T08:20:10+00:00","og_image":[{"width":1329,"height":888,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2016\/10\/Delhi-HC.jpg","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Bhumika Indulia","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Bhumika Indulia","Est. reading time":"3 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/sufficient-cause\/#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/sufficient-cause\/"},"author":{"name":"Bhumika Indulia","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"headline":"Del HC | Scope of Or. 9 R. 13 CPC application: Whether summons duly served and\/or whether defendant was prevented by ‘sufficient cause’ from appearing? Explained","datePublished":"2021-04-27T12:29:45+00:00","dateModified":"2021-04-30T08:20:10+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/sufficient-cause\/"},"wordCount":663,"commentCount":2,"keywords":["ex-parte decree","law","Order IX Rule 13 CPC","Sufficient Cause","summons"],"articleSection":["Case Briefs","High Courts"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/sufficient-cause\/#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/sufficient-cause\/","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/sufficient-cause\/","name":"Del HC | Scope of Or. 9 R. 13 CPC application: Whether summons duly served and\/or whether defendant was prevented by 'sufficient cause' from appearing? Explained | SCC Times","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#website"},"datePublished":"2021-04-27T12:29:45+00:00","dateModified":"2021-04-30T08:20:10+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/#\/schema\/person\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a"},"description":"Sufficient Cause","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/sufficient-cause\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/sufficient-cause\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/04\/27\/sufficient-cause\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Del HC | Scope of Or. 9 R. 13 CPC application: Whether summons duly served and\/or whether defendant was prevented by ‘sufficient cause’ from appearing? Explained"}]},{"@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\/919ec47cc1b871b362af05740398033a","name":"Bhumika Indulia","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2021\/04\/Me-150x150.jpg","caption":"Bhumika Indulia"},"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/author\/editor_1\/"}]}},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":212120,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/03\/16\/bom-hc-time-period-fixed-under-or-8-r-1-cpc-is-directory-in-nature-delay-in-filing-written-statement-condoned\/","url_meta":{"origin":247713,"position":0},"title":"Bom HC | Time period fixed under Or. 8 R. 1 CPC is directory in nature; delay in filing written statement condoned","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"March 16, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Bombay High Court at Goa: C.V. Bhadang, J., condoned a delay of 50 days in filing the written statement. As per facts of the case, in the suit filed by the respondent, the petitioner was served the summons on 10-07-2017; and on 12-8-2017, he sought time to engage a government\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":361690,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2025\/09\/26\/bom-hc-litigant-shoud-not-suffer-due-to-lapse-on-part-of-advocate-office\/","url_meta":{"origin":247713,"position":1},"title":"\u2018Litigant cannot be made to suffer on account of lapses of Advocate\u2019s office\u2019; Bombay HC condones 75-day delay in filing written statement","author":"Editor","date":"September 26, 2025","format":false,"excerpt":"The Court opined that the applicants, upon finding out the lapse by the advocate\u2019s office in filing the written statement, were vigilant enough to contact the Advocate themselves.","rel":"","context":"In "Case Briefs"","block_context":{"text":"Case Briefs","link":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/category\/casebriefs\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"lapse on part of advocate","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/lapse-on-part-of-advocate.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/lapse-on-part-of-advocate.webp?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/lapse-on-part-of-advocate.webp?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/09\/lapse-on-part-of-advocate.webp?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x"},"classes":[]},{"id":252178,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2021\/08\/03\/territorial-jurisdiction\/","url_meta":{"origin":247713,"position":2},"title":"Del HC | Determination of territorial jurisdiction of Court in matters relating to trademark infringement: HC discusses","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"August 3, 2021","format":false,"excerpt":"Delhi High Court: Sanjeev Narula, J., while addressing the present matter held that prima facie view on territorial jurisdiction has to be on the basis of averments made in the plaint, and the documents relied upon by the plaintiff and in case the same brings out the ingredients for establishing\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":238505,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/04\/kar-hc-whether-entering-appearance-by-advocate-but-not-contesting-the-case-be-considered-as-ex-parte-proceedings-under-order-9-rule-13-cpc-court-explains\/","url_meta":{"origin":247713,"position":3},"title":"Kar HC | Whether entering \u2018appearance\u2019 by Advocate but not contesting the case be considered as Ex-parte proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC? Court explains","author":"Editor","date":"November 4, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Karnataka High Court: M. I. Arun J. dismissed the petition without interfering in the discretion exercised by the Appellate Court in the impugned judgment. \u00a0The facts of the case are that an original suit was filed before Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Kolar for a decree of partition and separate\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":213911,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2019\/04\/24\/ori-hc-order-21-rule-29-cpc-cannot-come-to-the-rescue-unless-sufficient-cause-is-shown-to-stay-the-execution-case\/","url_meta":{"origin":247713,"position":4},"title":"Ori HC | Order 21 Rule 29 CPC cannot come to the rescue unless sufficient cause is shown to stay the execution case","author":"Bhumika Indulia","date":"April 24, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Orissa High Court: The Bench of A.K. Rath, J. dismissed the petition filed against the order which rejected the application of the petitioner filed under Order 21 Rule 29 CPC to stay the further proceeding in an execution case till the disposal of another civil suit.\u00a0 The facts of the\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":238707,"url":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/post\/2020\/11\/06\/utt-hc-ex-parte-decree-set-aside-considering-sufficient-cause-under-or-9-r-13-of-the-code-of-civil-procedure-1908-court-allows-appeal\/","url_meta":{"origin":247713,"position":5},"title":"Utt HC | Ex-parte decree set aside considering \u201csufficient cause\u201d under Or. 9 R. 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908; Court allows appeal","author":"Editor","date":"November 6, 2020","format":false,"excerpt":"Uttaranchal High Court: The Division Bench of Sudhanshu Dhulia and Alok Kumar Verma, JJ., allowed an appeal which was filed challenging an order passed by Judge, Family Court whereby, the application filed by the appellant, under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 for setting aside\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":[]}],"amp_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247713","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\/8808"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=247713"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/247713\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=247713"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=247713"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.scconline.com\/blog\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=247713"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}