Mere pendency of a civil revision does not stay execution of a decree.

Opposite Party No. 1 instituted Title Suit No. 35 of 2012 seeking declaration of title, recovery of possession and permanent injunction in respect of the suit property. The suit was decreed ex parte on 12 April 2017.

The petitioner thereafter filed Misc. Case No. 37 of 2019 under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, together with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, alleging that summons had not been served on Mrinalini Jana, the person in charge of the Pakuria ICDS Centre, and that the petitioner first learned of the decree when the bailiff visited the property on 8 July 2019. The delay in filing the application was approximately 808 days.

The trial court dismissed the Order IX Rule 13 application and the application for condonation of delay on 26 April 2024. The appellate court dismissed the petitioner’s miscellaneous appeal on 30 June 2025.

Meanwhile, the decree was put into execution in Title Execution Case No. 19 of 2018. During the pendency of C.O. No. 4267 of 2025, the executing court directed the Nazir or authorised seal bailiff to execute the decree with police assistance by order dated 15 July 2026.

1. Whether the ex parte decree was liable to be set aside under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on the ground that summons had not been duly served or that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing.

2. Whether the petitioner established sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the approximately 808-day delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

3. Whether alleged non-compliance with Order V Rules 17, 19 and 20 CPC, or alleged fraud in obtaining the decree, warranted interference with the concurrent findings of the courts below under Article 227 of the Constitution.

4. Whether mere pendency of a civil revision petition operated as a stay of the execution proceedings and prevented the executing court from directing execution of the decree with police assistance.

Order IX Rule 13 CPC requires an ex parte decree to be set aside where the defendant proves that summons was not duly served or that the defendant was prevented by sufficient cause from appearing; however, the decree is not to be set aside merely for an irregularity in service where the defendant had notice of the hearing and sufficient time to appear.

Under Parimal v. Veena, (2011) 3 SCC 545, “sufficient cause” requires an honest and sincere intention to appear, absence for a cause for which the defendant cannot fairly be blamed, and a reasonable defence; the determination is factual and discretionary.

Order V Rule 17 applies where the defendant refuses service or cannot be found, Rule 19 concerns the court’s examination of service where a summons is returned under Rule 17, and Rule 20 concerns substituted service where ordinary service cannot be effected.

Concurrent findings of fact are not ordinarily interfered with under Article 227 absent perversity.

Mere pendency of a civil revision does not operate as a stay of execution in the absence of an express stay order.

The High Court held that the summons addressed to the defendant ICDS Centre, represented by Mrinalini Jana, was shown by the acknowledgment due card to have been served.

Consequently, the provisions concerning refusal or failure of ordinary service and substituted service under Order V Rules 17, 19 and 20 CPC were inapplicable.

The petitioner failed to prove that the acknowledgment card was fabricated, having produced no evidence from the postal department, and the courts below were entitled to draw an adverse inference from that omission.

The allegation that Mrinalini Jana’s illness prevented her from attending court was unsupported by medical records, treatment documents or attendance records; moreover, the evidence indicated that she continued working until 16 May 2018 and had knowledge of the suit through her participation in the local inspection.

Applying the principles in Parimal, the Court found no sufficient cause either for non-appearance or for the substantial delay.

The alleged fraud did not assist the petitioner because, unlike in T. Vijendradas, the summons was not sent to a wrong address and the acknowledgment card recorded service.

Since the findings of the courts below were supported by the evidence and were not perverse, Article 227 could not be invoked to reassess those factual conclusions.

As to execution, the Court held that the pending civil revision did not suspend the execution proceedings because no stay had been granted. The executing court was also justified in refusing adjournment, particularly in view of the direction to dispose of execution cases within six months and the subsequent dismissal of C.O. No. 4267 of 2025.

It also dismissed C.O. No. 2575 of 2026, holding that the executing court rightly proceeded with execution and validly directed the seal bailiff to execute the decree with police assistance in the absence of any stay order.

Both applications were dismissed without any order as to costs.