SPECIMAN / SAMPLE DRAFT / WRITTEN REPLY TO THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER IX RULE 13 CPC FOR SETTING-ASIDE EX-PARTE DECREE

IN THE COURT OF LEARNED CIVIL JUDGE, ISLAMABAD (EAST)

C.M NO.________/2025

In Matter of:

ABC_________________

… Applicant

Versus

XYZ____________etc.

… Respondents

WRITTEN REPLY ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT NO. 1 TO THE APPLICATION FILED UNDER ORDER IX RULE 13 CPC

RESPECTFULLY SHEWETH;

Preliminary Submissions:

1. That the applicant/defendant has filed the instant petition for setting aside the ex parte proceedings and/or decree, which is misconceived, based on false assertions, and legally untenable. The application is devoid of merits and is liable to be dismissed summarily.
2. That the application is not maintainable under the law and is liable to be dismissed with costs, as the applicant/petitioner has approached this Honourable Court with unclean hands, suppression of material facts, and malicious intentonly to delay the adjudication of the suit. The application is hopelessly barred by time and is an abuse of the process of law.
3. That due process was strictly followed, and the summons were duly servedin accordance with the law. Moreover, personal intimation via WhatsApp was also made, and screenshot of said communication is annexed herewith. This clearly proves that the Applicant/defendant was informed and had full opportunity to appear and defend.
4. That the applicant/defendant was fully aware of the pending proceedings before this Hon’ble Courtand a memo of appearance was also filed by the learned counsel for the Applicant/Defendant, which is on record. The Applicant/Defendant deliberately chose not to appear despite having knowledge of the suit and the dates of hearing. Subsequently, he absented himself willfully and defaulted in filing the written statement, leading to ex-parte judgement and decree. Hence, no sufficient cause exists for his non-appearance.
5. That the applicant is deliberately distorting the facts to frustrate the due course of justice. His version that he was unaware of the case is patently false, misleading, and concocted merely to delay the execution of a rightful claim.
6. That the application does not fall within the ambit of the grounds provided under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The explanation offered for the alleged non-appearance does not amount to “sufficient cause” as contemplated by law. The Hon’bleApex Courts have consistently held that mere negligence, avoidance, or tactical absence does not justify recall of ex parte proceedings or decree.
7. That the Applicant/Respondenthas himself admitted joint possession and partnership with other defendant in earlier written communications and minutes of the meetings duly signed and dated. The documentary evidence in support thereof has already been submitted before this Honourable Court during trial.
8. That the applicant’s conduct is reflective of mala fide intent to protract the matter and frustrate the lawful claim of the plaintiff. His conduct does not warrant any indulgence from this Hon’ble Court under its discretionary jurisdiction.
9. That Even otherwise, the present application suffers from unexplained delay and laches. No cogent reason has been offered as to why the application was not filed promptly upon knowledge of the decree.
10. That it is settled law that once a defendant has been properly served and fails to appear or contest, the ex parte decree passed thereupon cannot be set aside unless it is shown that non-appearance was due to bona fide and sufficient cause. The applicant has failed to discharge this burden.
11. That in addition, the application is hopelessly time-barred and beyond the limitation prescribed under Article 164 of the Limitation Act, 1908. No application for condonation of delay has been filed, and thus, the present petition is not maintainable on this ground alone.
12. That the Applicant’s act of filing the present application is a malicious attempt to frustrate the adjudicationand to unnecessarily delay the outcome of a justly pursued suit. The application is thus liable to be dismissed with exemplary costs.

PARAWISE COMMENTS

13. That para no. 1 is false and vehemently denied.
14. That para no. 1 is false and vehemently denied.
15. That para no. 1 is false and vehemently denied.
16. That para no. 1 is false and vehemently denied.
17. That para no. 1 is false and vehemently denied.
18. That para no. 1 is false and vehemently denied.
19. That para no. 1 is false and vehemently denied.
20. That para no. 1 is false and vehemently denied.
21. That para no. 1 is false and vehemently denied.
22. That para no. 1 is false and vehemently denied.
23. That para no. 1 is false and vehemently denied.

PRAYER:
In view of the above submissions, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon’ble Court may graciously be pleased to:

1. a) Dismiss the instant application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC with costs; and
   b) Uphold the ex parte proceedings/decree as valid and lawful in the interest of justice.

Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also be granted.

Respondent/Plaintiff

THROUGH

Asadullah Hashmi                                                       Basim Naser
Advocate High Court                                              Advocate High Court
LLM-ITL(Medalist)

Contact Details: 0332-7516974 / 0332-0074848

Office no. 4, Block-D-7, FGEHA Apartments, Opp. Federal Judicial Complex, Sector-G-11/4, Islamabad