An ex-parte judgment cannot be set aside by simply blaming the previous counsel.

The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi rejected the contention of the Appellant challenging the dismissal of his application under Order IX Rule 13 by the Trial Court. The Delhi Court held that the litigant owes a duty to be vigilant of his rights and is also expected to be equally vigilant about the judicial proceedings pending in the court.


The same was held in the matter of Bakeer Bhai Vs. Yashwant Gupta Civil F.A.O No. 539/2018 on 27.11.2018.



The Appellant herein challenged the impugned order of the Trial Court dismissing his application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside of the ex-parte decree passed against him.



The High Court after analysing the contentions of the parties, upheld the decision of the Trial Court and held that the litigant cannot be permitted to cast the entire blame on the Advocate. If the litigant does not appear in the court and leaves the case at the mercy of his counsel without caring as to what different frivolous pleas/defences being taken by his counsel for adjournments, he is bound to suffer.


The Court further observed that the conduct of the litigant is also of utmost importance while deciding an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC. The said application has to be filed by applicant within 30 days of the passing of the ex-parte decree as per section 123 of the Limitation Act 1963. Delay in filing the same shows the casual approach on the part of the litigant, and he cannot entirely blame the counsel under such a circumstance.