2025:UHC:8657 SL. No. Date Office Notes, reports, orders or proceedings or directions and Registrar’s order with Signatures COURT’S OR JUDGE’S ORDERS A.O No.418 of 2024 Hon’ble Alok Mahra, J. Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Siddhartha Singh, Advocate for the respondent. 2. This Appeal From Order has been filed, challenging the order dated 01.08.2024 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Vikas Nagar, Dehradun in Misc. Case No.18 of 2019, whereby application filed by the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., seeking setting aside of the ex-parte decree, has been dismissed. 3. The principal ground canvassed by the appellant in the present Appeal is that the notice of the suit was never served upon him and that at the time when the notice came to be published in the daily newspaper, namely, Rashtriya Sahara, the appellant was not at Dehradun and, consequently, he had no knowledge of the pendency of the proceedings. It is further contended that the appellant, for the very first time, became aware of the ex-parte decree only on 28.09.2019, when upon visiting the disputed property, he was apprised by certain persons that the suit had already been decreed ex-parte, whereafter he immediately contacted his counsel and preferred an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. on 10.10.2019, seeking recall of the ex-parte decree. 4. Per contra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submits that the appellant has no locus 2025:UHC:8657 standi to assail the impugned order, inasmuch as, the land in dispute had already been alienated by the appellant through a registered sale deed dated 07.08.2019, much prior to the filing of the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. It is further submitted that subsequent purchasers of the said property, being directly aggrieved by the ex-parte decree, have already availed the appropriate legal remedy by instituting a First Appeal before this Court, wherein the validity of the ex- parte decree is under judicial scrutiny. Learned counsel would submit that since the rights in the disputed property now vest in the purchasers and their challenge to the decree is already subjudice, the present Appeal at the instance of the appellant is misconceived and devoid of merits. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and carefully examined the material available on record. It is evident that the learned trial Court, upon affording opportunity to the respondents to file objections and upon due appreciation of the evidence placed before it, proceeded to dismiss the appellant’s application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. by a well- reasoned order, recording a categorical finding that the appellant had sufficient notice of the proceedings, inasmuch as, the summons were duly served by registered post as well as through publication in the daily newspaper. 6. In the case of “Parimal Vs. Veena alias Bharti”, reported in (2011) 3 SCC 545, the Hon’ble Apex Court has examined the scope of Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, relating to setting aside of an ex-parte decree. The Court held that an ex-parte decree can be set aside only if the defendant satisfies the Court that the summons had not been 2025:UHC:8657 duly served or that he was prevented by “sufficient cause” from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing. It was emphasized that “sufficient cause” must be construed strictly, and mere negligence, lack of diligence, or casual conduct cannot constitute sufficient cause. The Court clarified that if the service of summons is duly proved, the plea of lack of knowledge is untenable. The burden lies heavily upon the defendant to establish genuine, bona fide reasons for his absence. 7. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds that the learned trial Court, upon affording full opportunity to the parties and upon due consideration of the material available on record, has rightly dismissed the appellant’s application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., holding that the appellant had due notice of the proceedings by way of registered post as well as publication in the newspaper. This Court, having given anxious consideration to the rival submissions and having meticulously perused the impugned order, is of the considered view that the same does not suffer from any illegality, perversity, or jurisdictional error warranting interference in appellate jurisdiction. 8. Accordingly, the Appeal from Order fails and is dismissed. (Alok Mahra, J.) 25.09.2025 Arpan ARPAN JAISWAL Digitally signed by ARPAN JAISWAL DN: c=IN, o=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, ou=HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND, 2.5.4.20=eabb68a3895e41937c266c23964c048536544 5e3a20dddb7393398f9fe45ba3e, postalCode=263001, st=UTTARAKHAND, serialNumber=060FC17022BEAE3DE215D68D9D454C5 109CB987446351E4DF04AADAA2C2CEA66, cn=ARPAN JAISWAL Date: 2025.09.25 17:26:21 +05'30'