1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WP227 No. 737 of 2024 1 - Jay Kishan Sahu S/o Late Shri Dauram Sahu Aged About 36 Years Presently R/o Sirpur Road Kasdol, Tahsil Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.),... (Defendant No. 1) ... Petitioner/defendant No.1 versus 1 - Ramkali D/o Shri Kholbehra Satnami Aged About 29 Years R/o Indira Colony Kasdol, Tahsil - Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.),..(Plaintiff) 2 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through - Collector Balodabazar, Balodabazar- Bhatapara (C.G.),...(Defendant No. 2) ---- Respondents For Petitioner/ : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate Defendant No.1 For Respondent No.1/ : Mr. Sumit Shrivastava, Advocate Plaintiff For State/Respondent No.2 : Mr. Sanjeev Agrawal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 25.08.2025 1. The petitioner/defendant No.1 has challenged the order dated 15.07.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional District Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.), in Miscellaneous Civil Appeal -2- No.08/2022 whereby the appeal preferred under Order 43 Rule 1 of CPC was dismissed and the order passed by the learned Civil Judge, Class-1 Kasdol, in M.J.C. No.04/2021 dated 05.12.2022, was affirmed. 2. Mr. Sharma, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner/defendant No.1, would submit that Civil Suit No.16-A/2017 was filed by respondent No.1/plaintiff for the specific performance of the contract. He would further submit that after the service of summons, the petitioner appeared before the learned Trial Court regularly between 06.03.2019 to 29.11.2019. He would also submit that on 13.12.2019, when the civil suit was set for the plaintiff’s evidence, no one appeared for the petitioner, and he was proceeded ex parte. He would contend that the ex parte judgment and decree were passed on 04.02.2020. He would further contend that the petitioner was served with the notice of execution on 07.06.2021. Thereafter, the petitioner collected the certified copy of the judgment and decree on 16.06.2021 and moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay on 30.06.2021. He would also contend that there was a delay of one year and five months in filing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC, and on the ground of delay, the learned Trial Court rejected the application. He would argue that the Courts below ought to have extended the benefit of judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020, wherein, it was clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall stand 3 excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Section 23(4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996 and any other laws, which prescribe periods of limitation for instituting proceedings. He would further argue that the petitioner preferred a miscellaneous appeal, and the same was also dismissed vide order dated 15.07.2024. He would also argue that the petitioner had explained the delay properly in the application. He would pray to allow the present petition. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.1/plaintiff, would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Sharma. He would submit that though the petitioner was aware of the pending civil proceedings before the learned Civil Court but failed to participate; therefore, he was proceeded ex-parte and an ex-parte judgment and decree was passed. He would contend that the petitioner kept mum for a period of one year and five months, and thereafter, he approached the Court below along with an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC. He would further contend that as the petitioner could not explain the delay properly, his application was rejected, and the findings recorded by the learned Civil Court have been affirmed by the learned Appellate Court. He would contend that the petition deserves to be dismissed. 4. Mr. Agrawal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent No.2, would support the orders passed by the learned Courts below. 5. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the -4- documents placed on the record. 6. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 of 2020 in para 5 (IV) held as under:- “5(IV). It is further clarified that the period from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 shall also stand excluded in computing the periods prescribed under Sections 23 (4) and 29A of the Arbitration and Conciliation Act, 1996, Section 12A of the Commercial Courts Act, 2015 and provisos (b) and (c) of Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 and any other laws, which prescribe period(s) of limitation for instituting proceedings, outer limits (within which the court or tribunal can condone delay) and termination of proceedings.” A bare reading of the proposition laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court would make it clear that the delay from 15.03.2020 till 28.02.2022 was excluded in computing the period of limitation in any proceedings, where the law of limitation applies. 7. In the present case, the petitioner was proceeded ex-parte on 13.12.2019, and an ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 04.02.2020. The petitioner was served with the execution notice on 07.06.2021. He obtained the certified copy on 16.06.2021 and immediately thereafter moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act on 30.06.2021. 8. Learned Trial Court failed to consider the order passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court has relaxed the period of limitation in initiating any proceedings where the law of limitation applies. 9. Considering the above-discussed facts and the order passed by the 5 Hon’ble Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3/2020, the orders passed by the Appellate Court in Misc. Civil Appeal No.08/2022 dated 15.07.2024 and the learned Civil Judge, Class-1 Kasdol in M.J.C. No.04/2021 dated 05.12.2022 are hereby set aside. 10.The matter is remitted back to the learned Trial Court to decide the application moved by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC afresh on its own merits. 11.The parties are directed to appear before the learned Civil Court on the 14th of October, 2025. 12.The record be sent back forthwith. 13.In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha