Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC-LKO:19395 Court No. - 6 Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 1004089 of 2007 Petitioner :- Smt. Munni Devi Respondent :- Additional District Judge Sitapur And 11 Ors. Counsel for Petitioner :- D.C.Mukerjee,Ajay Kishor Pandey,Manish Mathur Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C,A.K.Srivastava,Amita Anand,G.S.Srivastava,Shikhar Anand Hon'ble Pankaj Bhatia,J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel and Sri Shikhar Anand, learned Counsel for the private respondents. 2. The present petition has been filed challenging an order dated 23.04.2005 whereby, an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act along with the application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. was dismissed as well as the appellate order dated 04.07.2007 whereby, the miscellaneous appeal preferred against the said order was also dismissed. 3. The facts in brief are that a suit for declaration was filed arraying the defendants as indicated in the plaint. The petitioner did not put in appearance. The notice was served through a publication. Ultimately the petitioner and the other defendants including the brother-in-law of the petitioner as well as her son put in appearance and engaged an advocate. Subsequently, the suit came to be decreed ex-parte on 16.10.1998. After the said ex-parte decree, the petitioner moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. along with an application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. The said applications are on record. In the said application, it was stated that the brother- in-law of the petitioner never informed the petitioner about the proceedings of the suit and also did not call her and had assured the petitioner that he was looking after the case, however, she was not aware and ultimately when she went to collect the rent, she was informed that the suit has been decided ex-parte. The said application under Order XI Rule 13 as well as the application under Section 5 of the Indian Limitation Act came to be dismissed on the ground that the petitioner had failed to make out the cause sufficient to condone the delay. It was also recorded that the petitioner after having put in appearance had stop coming, for which, no explanation has been offered. Based upon the said application for condonation of delay and the application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P,.C. were rejected vide impugned order dated 23.04.2005. The petitioner preferred an appeal against the said order which came to be dismissed vide judgment dated 04.07.2007. The appellate court also concurred with the finding recorded by the trial court. 4. The Counsel for the petitioner argues that the court should be liberal in allowing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. in the light of the judgment in the case of Smt. Sudesh and others vs Additional District Judge, Court No.8, Kanpur Dehat and others: [2006 (24) LCD 230]. 5. The Counsel for the respondent on the other hand argues that on the basis of the pleadings in the application, no case for allowing the application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. was made out. He relies on the Allahabad amendments carried out in Order IX Rule 13 which specifically bars that no ex-parte decree shall be set aside on the ground of irregularities in the service of summons if the court is satisfied that the defendant knew about the date of hearing. 6. It is further argued that the petitioner had put in appearance and thereafter fail to contest the suit. He further informs that the son of the petitioner as well as the brother-in-law had not even challenge or move an application for recall of the ex-parte decree. He argues that no allegation or averment are contained to the effect that the petitioner had no notice or there were sufficient cause for not appearing. 7. In the present case, a specific stand has been taken in paragraph 4 that the relationship with the petitioner and his son were not cordial relations. The averment is contrary to the pleadings of the application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. No such plea was taken finding that the casual manner in which the application was filed and the writ is pursuing and there being no material to suggest that the petitioner was vigilant in pursuing her case. 8. No good ground for interference is made out. The petition lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 7.4.2025 akverma Digitally signed by :- ASHOK KUMAR VERMA High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench