- (1.) WITH the consent of the parties, the matter has been finally heard.
(2.) THIS appeal under Order XLIII, Rule 1(d) CPC has been filed against the order dated 18.9.2012, whereby application filed by the appellant under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree dated 30.7.2001 has been dismissed as barred by limitation. The facts in brief are that the respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery of a sum of Rs.72,175/- and the said suit was decreed ex-parte on 30.7.2001. An application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC was filed by the appellant through her proprietor on 24.10.2007 with the averments that she was not served properly during the pendency of the suit and became aware of filing of the suit and the ex-parte decree only on 11.9.2007 when in the execution proceedings amount was sought to be recovered from her. The application was opposed by the respondent-Bank by filing reply.
(3.) THE trial court after hearing the parties came to the conclusion that even when the appellant became aware of passing of the ex-parte decree and the certified copy was received by her on 13.9.2007, the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC was filed on 24.10.2007, the same was barred by limitation and as no application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay was filed, the application under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC was liable to be dismissed.;