Trial court receives extended time where missing records prevent timely adjudication under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

The matter arose from an office reference based on a PUD submitted by the concerned Trial Court seeking extension of time to comply with the High Court’s order dated 8 April 2026 in M.A. No. 19 of 2022, Lalji Sahu v. Kamal Prasad Kasar & Others.

The High Court had directed the Trial Court to decide the petitioner’s application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in Miscellaneous Civil Suit Case No. H-41/2017 within 30 days from the appearance of the parties.

Jairam Dubey appeared through counsel on 15 July 2026, but the State of Chhattisgarh did not appear, resulting in ex parte proceedings against it.

The proceedings were connected with six other cases arising from the same order. Records in four connected matters, including Case No. H-41/2017, had not been received from the High Court, and the Trial Court stated that those records were necessary for effective adjudication of the Order IX Rule 13 application.

Whether the Trial Court should be granted an extension of time to comply with the High Court’s direction to decide the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.

Whether the non-receipt of records in connected matters constituted sufficient and bona fide justification for extending the prescribed period.

The Court applied Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which governs applications for setting aside an ex parte decree.

It also applied the procedural principle that a court may extend the time fixed by its own direction where sufficient, bona fide, and practically justified reasons are shown, particularly where compliance is impeded by circumstances beyond the Trial Court’s control.

The High Court’s earlier order dated 8 April 2026 requiring disposal within 30 days formed the operative procedural direction in the matter.

The Court found that the Trial Court had not intentionally delayed compliance.

The appearance of one non-applicant, the non-appearance of the State, the resulting ex parte proceedings, and the pendency of several connected matters demonstrated that the proceedings were still at a preliminary and procedurally active stage.

More significantly, the records in four connected cases, including the relevant case, had not been received from the High Court and were considered necessary for proper adjudication of the Order IX Rule 13 application.

Treating the explanation as bona fide and sufficient, the Court held that the circumstances justified extending the time fixed by its earlier order.

With this extension, MCC No. 797 of 2026 was disposed of.