Bombay High Court
ALLIED SALES AGENCY REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR RAJEEV MURARKAversusCG PPI ADHESIVE PRODUCTS LIMITED REP BY ITS DULY CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY
- Disposal
- Allowed
Holding
The High Court partially allowed the revision, maintaining the setting aside of the ex‑parte decree but modifying the conditions to require payment of the balance of the principal amount and Rs 20,000 costs, and quashing the remaining harsh conditions.
Summary
Allied Sales Agency (applicant) challenged a High Court order dated 25‑11‑2025 that imposed several conditions for setting aside an ex‑parte decree in a suit for recovery of Rs 10,11,929.50. The trial court had required the applicant to deposit the full decretal amount with interest, pay Rs 50,000 per year as litigation costs, and adhere to strict procedural undertakings, failing which the decree would be reinstated. The applicant argued that these conditions were harsh, unreasonable and amounted to a penalty, while the respondent contended that the applicant’s repeated non‑appearance justified the stringent terms. The Court examined precedents that conditions imposed on restoration of a suit must be reasonable and not punitive. It held that the trial court’s conditions were excessive and modified them, ordering the applicant to pay only the balance of the principal amount and Rs 20,000 costs within four weeks, while quashing the remaining conditions.
Issues considered
- Whether the conditions imposed by the trial court for setting aside the ex‑parte decree are harsh, unreasonable, or punitive.
- Whether a court may condition the restoration of a suit on the payment of the full decretal amount with interest and annual litigation costs.
- Whether the principles laid down in Lachi Tewari v. Director of Land Records and V.K. Industries v. M.P. Electricity Board limit the court’s power to impose such conditions.
- What consequences should follow if the applicant fails to comply with the modified conditions.
Subjects
- ex‑parte decree
- setting aside decree
- civil procedure
- reasonable conditions
- punitive conditions
- deposit of decretal amount
- litigation costs
- advocate attendance
- adjournments
Judgment
2026:BHC-GOA:1823
(1) cra-256-2026(f).odt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT GOA
CIVIL REVISION APPLICATION NO.256 OF 2026 (F)
ALLIED SALES AGENCY REP BY ITS PROPRIETOR RAJEEV
MURAKA
VERSUS
CG PPI ADHESIVE PRODUCTS LIMITED REP BY ITS DULY
CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY
…
Mr. Rishi Murarka with Mr. Siddharth Nunes, Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. R. G. Ramani, Senior Advocate with Mr. Pranav Kakodkar,
Advocates for Respondent.
…
CORAM : S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR, J.
DATED : 08th SEPTEMBER, 2026.
FINAL ORDER:-
1. The applicant impugns order dated 25.11.2025 passed by Civil
Judge Senior Division at Ponda, Goa in Civil Miscellaneous Application
No.16/2024/A to the extent of condition imposed while setting aside ex-
parte decree dated 21.12.2023 passed in Special Civil Suit
No.22/2006/A.
2. The respondent instituted Special Civil Suit No.22/2006/A
seeking decree for recovery of amount of Rs.10,11,929.50/-. The suit
proceeded ex-parte against applicant and judgment and decree dated
22.06.2007 was passed against him. This Court in Writ Petition
No.247/2009 set aside ex-parte decree observing that applicant was not
duly served with suit summons, however, on condition that applicant
deposits half of claimed amount i.e. Rs.5,34,125/- within period of six
weeks.
(2) cra-256-2026(f).odt
3. The applicant filed written statement, issues were framed and
recording of plaintiff’s evidence was in progress w.e.f. 05.05.2011. The
applicant cross-examined Plaintiff Witness No.1. While plaintiff’s
evidence was in progress, hearing of suit was fixed on 13.06.2013. The
applicant’s Advocate failed to appear for cross-examination of plaintiff
witness. Eventually, no-cross order was passed on 01.10.2013 and
finally ex-parte decree came to be passed on 21.12.2013. The applicant
filed application for setting aside ex-parte decree alongwith application
to condone delay. On 15.01.2024, Trial Court condoned delay.
Eventually, Civil Miscellaneous Application No.16/2024/A was
registered for setting aside ex-parte decree. The Trial Court allowed
application in following terms:
(i) The Applicant herein (Defendant in the Civil Suit) is
directed to deposit before the Nazir of this Court the entire
decreetal amount with all interest accrued upto today -
which was ordered to be paid vide Judgment and Decree
dated 21.12.2013. While depositing the said entire decreetal
amount, the Applicant herein (Defendant in the Civil Suit)
shall deduct / minus the amount already deposited before
this Court in terms of Order dated 22.07.2009, passed by
Hon’ble High Court of Bombay at Goa.
(ii) The deposits are to be made as per the calculations
specifically approved by the Nazir of the Court. The Nazir is
directed to verify the calculations presented by the Applicant
herein (Defendant in the Civil Suit) thoroughly and if
approved, the Nazir shall record a specific observation that
he checked the calculations and found it to be correct. If the
calculations presented by the Applicant herein (Defendant
in the Civil Suit) is not found to be incorrect, the Nazir to
make his calculation and the Applicant herein (Defendant in
(3) cra-256-2026(f).odt
the Civil Suit) shall make the payment as per the calculation
of the Nazir. The said money is to be deposited before this
Court within three weeks from today.
(iii) Upon such deposit being effected within the stipulated time
period, the Nazir to invest the entire deposited amount in a
Nationalized Bank initially for a period of one year and
such investment shall be renewed for such like terms from
time to time upto further Orders of this Court, in the Civil
Suit.
(iv) Considering that the Applicant herein (Defendant in the
Civil Suit) stopped appearing since 13.06.2013, the
Applicant herein (Defendant in the Civil Suit) is also
directed to deposit costs of Rs.50,000/- per calendar year as
token litigation costs and token costs for other
miscellaneous expenses incurred by the Respondent herein
(Plaintiff in the Civil Suit). Such costs shall be deposited
directly with the Respondent herein (Plaintiff in the Civil
Suit) under written intimation to this Court, in this Civil
Miscellaneous Application. The entire amount is to be
deposited before this Court within three weeks from today.
(v) The Applicant herein (Defendant in the Civil Suit) to strictly
adhere to the timelines fixed by this Court and it is made
clear that the Court expects complete diligence on the part
of the Applicant herein (Defendant in the Civil Suit) and the
Court makes it crystal clear that no extension of time shall
be granted.
(vi) The Applicant herein (Defendant in the Civil Suit) to give a
written Undertaking to the Court that they shall keep their
Advocate present and instructed on each date of hearing
and shall also specifically undertake to ensure that the party
or their Advocate does not seek even a single adjournment
in the matter. They shall specifically undertake that if their
Advocate is under any difficulty whatsoever, they shall keep
an alternate Advocate present, prepared and duly instructed
to go ahead with the matter. Such undertaking is required
because the Court is conscious of the fact that when the
(4) cra-256-2026(f).odt
Civil Suit is restored, it shall be treated as a 19 years old
Action Plan Matter monitored by the Hon’ble High Court.
(vii) Only in the event the two payments are made in full within
the stipulated period of three weeks from today, the
Judgment and Decree dated 21.12.2013 shall be quashed
and set aside and the Special Civil Suit no. 22/2006/A shall
stand restored to the file of this Court and the hands of the
clock shall be set back to the stage of trial, where the
Applicant herein (Defendant in the Civil Suit) will be given
a chance to cross examine PW1.
(viii) It is also made clear that if the Applicant herein (Defendant
in the Civil Suit) does not deposit the two amounts, in full,
within the stipulated period of three weeks, this Order shall
be without any effect and the Respondent herein (Plaintiff in
the Civil Suit) shall proceed to prosecute Execution
Application no. 16/2019, which is kept alive for the moment
– and which shall be disposed of only in the event the
Applicant herein (Defendant in the Civil Suit) complies with
this Order, in full, within the stipulated time limit.
(ix) Civil Miscellaneous Application disposed of accordingly,
but kept for compliance of directions passed herein. Place
this disposed Civil Miscellaneous Application on
18.12.2025, at 10.00 am to monitor compliance.
(x) Execution Application no. 16/2019 is on board today. In
view of this Order, matter is adjourned simplicitor. Put up
Execution Application no. 16/2019 on Board on 18.12.2025,
at 10.00 am, for Directions - if there is full compliance on
the part of the Applicant herein.
4. The applicant is aggrieved by conditions imposed by Trial Court
being harsh and unreasonable.
5. Mr. Rishi Murarka, learned Advocate appearing for applicant
submits that respondent instituted suit with principle claim for
(5) cra-256-2026(f).odt
Rs.10,11,929.50/- and sought recovery of unpaid price of goods and
damages. The applicant has already deposited sum of Rs.5,34,125/-
while complying condition imposed by this Court while setting aside
first ex-parte decree. Second time although decree has been set aside,
condition to deposit decretal amount alongwith interest with further cost
of Rs.50,000/- per calendar year has been imposed, which is harsh and
unreasonable. He would, therefore, urge to quash and set aside
condition of deposit of decretal amount alongwith interest and further
cost of Rs.50,000/- per calendar year as token of litigation cost allegedly
incurred by plaintiff.
6. Per contra, Mr. R. G. Ramani, learned Senior Advocate appearing
for respondent would invite attention of this Court to conduct of
applicant. He points out that suit is instituted in year 2006. Previously,
ex-parte decree was passed, which was set aside in year 2009. The
plaintiff recorded his evidence during period from 2011 to 2013. The
applicant partially cross-examined respondent/plaintiff and thereafter
failed to participate in proceeding. Even thereafter he was not diligent
in prosecuting application for setting aside ex-parte decree or
application seeking condonation of delay caused in filing application for
setting aside ex-parte decree.
7. Having considered submissions advanced by learned Advocates
appearing for respective parties and after perusal of impugned
(6) cra-256-2026(f).odt
conditions incorporated in impugned order, it can be observed that
basically suit has been instituted for recovery of amount of
Rs.10,11,929.50/-, 50% of which has been deposited by applicant in
year 2009 and said amount is reportedly withdrawn by
respondent/plaintiff. Thereafter, ex-parte decree is passed alongwith
interest @ 21% per annum. Apparently, Trial Court was convinced with
reasons in support of setting aside ex-parte decree. Eventually, allowed
applicant’s prayer for setting aside ex-parte decree, however, by putting
condition of deposit of entire decretal amount with interest and litigation
cost of Rs.50,000/- per annum form 2013 onward, which counts to be
more than Rs.6,50,000/- as of today.
8. In case of Lachi Tewari Vs. Director of Land Records 1, Supreme
Court observed that “once applicant has taken care to engage Advocate,
his personal attendance and consequential failure of Advocate to take
necessary steps in matter cannot be penalized.” Similarly, in case of V.
K. Industries and Others Vs. M. P. Electricity Board, Rampur,
Jabalpur2, it has been observed that “although ex-parte decree was
passed against appellant, once it is set aside on ground of non-service
of suit summons money decree did not exist for execution. It is no doubt
true that in restoring case the Court may impose conditions to deposit
costs or the decretal amount or some portion thereof or to ask
1 1984 Supp. SCC 431.
2 (2002) 3 SCC 159.
(7) cra-256-2026(f).odt
defendant to give security but such conditions should be reasonable
and not harshly excessive.”
9. Keeping in mind aforesaid principles of law, this Court finds that
having convinced with reasons for setting aside ex-parte decree, Trial
Court could not have imposed onerous, harsh and unreasonable
conditions, which does not serve interest of justice. Apparently,
conditions are in the nature of penalty or punishment. In that view of
matter, this Court finds that equities can be balanced by modifying
conditions incorporated in impugned order. Hence, following order:
ORDER
a. Civil Revision Application is partly allowed.
b. The order of Trial Court dated 25.11.2025, to the extent of setting
aside ex-parte decree in Special Civil Suit No.22/2006/A is maintained
with modification that applicant shall deposit with Trial Court balance
of principle drecetal amount as per ex-parte decree in addition to cost of
Rs.20,000/- to be paid to plaintiff, within period of four weeks from
today. Rest of conditions in order impugned are quashed and set aside.
c. Once applicant complies aforesaid condition, Trial Court shall
proceed with suit giving opportunity to applicant to cross-examine
plaintiff’s witness(s) and lead his evidence.
(8) cra-256-2026(f).odt
d. The applicant shall file written undertaking to ensure presence of
his Advocate on all dates and avoid adjournments. Non-compliance of
aforesaid condition shall entail restoration of ex-parte decree dated
21.10.2013.
(S. G. CHAPALGAONKAR)
JUDGE
Devendra/August-2026
Checking your session…