Sikkim HC Condones delay to set aside ex parte judgment for lack of Service Proof

The Sikkim High Court has paved the way for a multi-million rupee insurance dispute to be reheard, ruling that a delay in filing for setting aside an ex parte award must be condoned when the court's own records fail to establish proper service of notice.

In a proceeding presided over by Justice Bhaskar Raj Pradhan, the Court addressed a significant application for condonation of delay filed by Reliance General Insurance Co. Ltd. The applicant sought to set aside ex parte judgment and award dated April 17, 2023, which had directed them to pay a substantial compensation of over Rs. 29 lakhs.

Key Takeaways

Service Record Primacy

Judicial satisfaction regarding the service of summons is a mandatory prerequisite before proceeding ex parte; absence of such a record warrants a lenient view on delays.

Natural Justice Priority

Procedural delays, even those extending over a year, may be condoned to ensure a case is heard on its merits rather than being decided by default due to technical oversights.

Knowledge of Decree

For the purpose of limitation under Limitation Act, 1963, the period for setting aside an ex parte decree begins from the date of knowledge if summons were not duly served.

Court Observations on Procedural Irregularity

The Sikkim High Court closely examined the order sheets leading up to the ex parte award and identified a critical lapse in the service procedure. Despite an initial online tracking report, the Court had previously deemed it fit to reissue notices, yet subsequent orders failed to record whether these notices were actually delivered to the insurer.

The Bench highlighted that “There is no order which records the satisfaction of this Court that the applicant/respondent no.3 has been served. I am thus of the considered view that the delay in filing this present application ought to be condoned to enable this court to hear on the merits of I.A. No.2/2026 which is an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, 1908 for setting aside the ex parte judgment and award dated 17.04.2023 passed by this Court.”

Ratio

In the absence of a specific judicial finding recording the satisfaction of the court regarding the due service of notice upon a respondent, an application for condonation of delay in filing a petition to set aside an ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the [Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 must be considered favorably to uphold the right to be heard.

Background

The matter arose from a Motor Accident Claims Appeal (MAC Appeal No. 02 of 2022) where an ex parte judgment was delivered on April 17, 2023, directing the insurance company to pay Rs. 29,19,551/- with 12% interest. The insurer claimed they only became aware of this award on November 27, 2024, upon receiving a notice in a contempt petition. While the claimants argued a delay of over 1 year and 8 months, the insurer contended the delay was only 32 days from the date of knowledge, citing Article 123 of the Limitation Act, 1963.

The Sikkim High Court noted that although an earlier order dated August 10, 2022, mentioned a tracking report, the Court had subsequently ordered the re-issuance of notice. Since there was no subsequent order confirming that the insurer was eventually served, the Bench found sufficient cause to condone the delay and allowed the application to proceed to a hearing on the merits of setting aside the award under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988.

Case Details:
Case No.: I.A. No.01 of 2025 (Arising out of) MAC. Appeal No.02 of 2022
Case Title: Aita Maya Gurung & Ors. vs. Ratna Kumar Pradhan & Ors.
Appearances:
For the Petitioner(s): Ms. Tashi Doma Bhutia, Ms. Pritima Sunam, Ms. Pratima Subba Limboo and Ms. Choki Sherpa, Advocates
For the Respondent(s): Mr. N. Rai, Senior Advocate with Ms. Tara Devi Chettri Advocates for Respondent No.1; Mr. Kshitij Mittal, Advocate and Mr. Papai Mondal, Advocate for Applicant/Respondent No.3

Source: 2026 CaseBase(SIK) 89