Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 of Pakistan (hereinafter referred to as CPCP) provides an avenue for defendants to seek the setting aside of ex parte decrees on the grounds of non-service of summons or sufficient cause for non-appearance. While this provision aims to ensure fairness and procedural justice, it is often criticised for being susceptible to abuse, leading to delays in resolving disputes.

Defendants often file multiple applications under Order IX Rule 13 on frivolous grounds, exploiting the court’s inclination toward procedural fairness. Several case laws have illustrated the abuse of this provision. For example, in the case of Nisar vs Said Qamar (Late) through LRs and others, where possession of disputed property was in contention, the court dismissed the application under Order IX Rule 13 filed by the defendant, as it did not provide sufficient cause for non-appearance of the defendant and was time-barred.

The application was time-barred for four months under Article 164 of the First Schedule to the Limitation Act 1908 (‘LA’), which is the provision that governs limitation for applications under Order IX Rule 13, and was also not supported by any application for condonation of delay. The sufficient cause shown was that he tested positive for Covid-19, and he did not provide a proper report of his illness. This case is a prime example of how Order IX Rule 13 is abused by parties to delay proceedings.

India also has the same law as Pakistan, which is Order IX of the Civil Procedure Code 1908 of India (‘CPCI’) for setting aside ex parte decrees. Many defendants have filed applications........

© The News International