Summary
After unsuccessfully pursuing proceedings to set aside an ex parte money decree, the defendant filed a delayed first appeal. The Supreme Court held that rejection of the earlier remedy did not extinguish the statutory appeal, though condonation depended on bona fides and the particular facts. Considering the defendant’s Rs. 25 lakh deposit, it granted conditional condonation of the 546-day delay upon a further Rs. 20 lakh deposit, leaving the merits open.
Issues
- Whether unsuccessful proceedings to set aside an ex parte decree barred a first appeal on merits.
- Whether the delay warranted condonation in the circumstances.
Held
- The statutory first appeal against an ex parte decree remains available despite rejection of the application to set it aside. The two remedies have different scopes, and settled objections concerning non-appearance cannot simply be relitigated through the appeal. (¶¶ 9, 10, 11, 12, 13)
- Bona fide pursuit of the earlier remedy may justify condonation, while dilatory tactics or lack of bona fides may justify refusal. This requires case-specific assessment. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- The existing Rs. 25 lakh deposit demonstrated bona fides. An additional Rs. 20 lakh deposit was imposed as a condition precedent to condoning delay and hearing the first appeal. (¶¶ 19, 20)
Result
Delay of 546 days conditionally condoned upon depositing Rs. 20 lakh in the trial court by 28 February 2020; on default, the condonation application stood dismissed. Upon deposit, the High Court order was set aside and the first appeal was to proceed. The additional sum was to remain in an auto-renewing bank deposit; both deposits remained subject to the appeal. Merits and cheque-dishonour prosecutions were left independent.