Revisional Jurisdiction – Delay Condonation – Restoration of Suit – Independent Legal Remedies

The Court held that the remedies of condoning the delay and setting aside an ex-parte decree are separate and independent, requiring distinct considerations and adjudication. The High Court erred in automatically restoring the suit without addressing the application to set aside the ex-parte decree. (Para 11, 12, 15)
The Supreme Court partly allowed the appeal, affirming the High Court’s decision to condone the delay but setting aside the automatic restoration of the suit. The matter was remanded to the Trial Court to decide the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree on its own merits.

Costs:
The respondents were directed to pay costs of Rs. 50,000 to the appellants.

Acts and Sections Discussed:

1. Constitution of India (COI) – Article 136

2. Limitation Act, 1963 – Section 5

3. Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC) – Order IX Rule 13

Subjects:
Revisional Jurisdiction – Ex-Parte Decree – Condonation of Delay – Restoration of Suit – Independent Legal Remedies – Jurisdictional Error – Substantial Rights – Justifiable Reason – Procedural Law – Natural Consequence

Nature of Litigation:
Civil Appeal arising out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement for sale.

Who Approached the Court and for What Remedy:
The appellants, as plaintiffs, sought specific performance of a sale agreement and challenged the High Court’s order that set aside the ex-parte decree without a proper challenge.

Reason for Filing the Case:
The High Court of Telangana condoned the delay in filing an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree but also proceeded to restore the suit without any revision being filed against the dismissal of the application to set aside the decree.

What Has Already Been Decided:
The Trial Court dismissed the application for condonation of delay, which led to the dismissal of the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree. The High Court allowed the revision petition, condoning the delay and restoring the suit, without proper consideration of the application to set aside the ex-parte decree.

Issues:
a) Whether the High Court was justified in setting aside the ex-parte decree when no revision was filed against the order dismissing the application for setting aside the decree.
b) Whether the High Court’s exercise of revisional jurisdiction was valid in automatically restoring the suit.

Submissions/Arguments:
a) The appellants argued that the High Court committed a jurisdictional error by setting aside the ex-parte decree without a proper challenge to the order dismissing the application.
b) It was contended that the remedies of delay condonation and setting aside an ex-parte decree are distinct and must be pursued independently.