Order IX Rule 13 proceedings cannot examine the merits of an ex parte decree.

SSIPL Lifestyle obtained an ex parte money decree against Counfreedise Retail Services for ₹11,14,73,900, with interest at 18% per annum.

In execution, the Commercial Court stayed proceedings subject to Counfreedise depositing 50% of the decretal amount by 10 July 2026.

Counfreedise’s challenge to that conditional order was dismissed in an earlier writ petition.

It then sought a stay in proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, alleging that the decree had been obtained by fraud and seeking unconditional relief; the Commercial Court’s order maintained the condition imposed in execution.

Counfreedise challenged that order, relying, among other matters, on its asserted inability to pay and the alleged fraud.

1. Whether the Commercial Court, in proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 CPC, could examine the petitioner’s allegations that the ex parte decree was obtained by fraud and grant an unconditional stay under Section 151 CPC.

2. Whether the petitioner established exceptional circumstances warranting an unconditional stay of execution of the money decree.

Order IX Rule 13 CPC confines the inquiry to whether sufficient cause existed for the defendant’s non-appearance; the merits of the decree are not ordinarily examined in that proceeding.

Under A.V. Papayya Sastry v. Govt. of A.P., a judgment, decree or order obtained by fraud on a court is a nullity, but the Court held that this principle does not itself permit fraud allegations to be adjudicated in an Order IX Rule 13 application.

Section 151 CPC may be invoked to correct an ex parte order resulting from fraud or collusion where no remedy under the CPC is available to address the court’s mistake, as discussed in Ram Prakash Agarwal v. Gopi Krishan and Emars Mining and Construction Pvt. Ltd. v. Majunath Hebbar.

Under Lifestyle Equities C.V. v. Amazon Technologies Inc., an unconditional stay of a money decree may be granted only sparingly, where exceptional circumstances—such as a decree that is egregiously perverse, patently illegal or facially untenable—are established.

The Court also referred to Periyammal (Dead) Through LRs v. V. Rajamani on expeditious conclusion of execution proceedings, ordinarily within six months of filing.

The Court held that the petitioner’s fraud allegation concerned the merits or validity of the decree and could not be examined in the limited Order IX Rule 13 proceeding.

Section 151 CPC was unavailable on the facts because the petitioner had not shown that the CPC provided no remedy for addressing the alleged fraud.

The petitioner had already unsuccessfully challenged the 50% deposit condition, had not complied with it, and had issued two cheques for ₹3.5 crore that were dishonoured.

The Court also noted the petitioner’s assurance before the Commercial Court that it would comply if granted more time.

These circumstances did not establish an exceptional case for an unconditional stay; the Court considered the petition an abuse of process intended to obstruct execution.

It declined to interfere with the conditional stay order and directed the Execution Court to endeavour to conclude the execution proceedings expeditiously, consistently with the timeline discussed in Periyammal.