(1 of 2) [CW-8876/2011]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.8876/2011
Harchand (since deceased through his legal heirs)
1. Sharbati Devi wife of late Shri Harchand resident of village
Chanachki, tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. Ram Niwas son of Late Shri Harchand, resident of village
Chanachki, tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Ram Chandra son of Late Shri Harchand, resident of village
Chanachki, tehsil Kotputli, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).
4. Imarti wife of Jai Dayal, Daughter of Late Shri Harchand,
Resident of Village Putali, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur.
5. Krishna wife of Shaitan Gurjar, D/o Late Shri Harchand,
Resident of Village Putali, Tehsil Kotputali District Jaipur
----Plaintiff-Petitioner
Versus
1. The Additional District Judge, Kotputali, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
2. The State of Rajasthan through Collector, Jaipur, District
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Sub Divisional Officer, Kotputali, District Jaipur, Rajasthan
4. The Tehsildar, Tehsil Kotputali, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
5. The Patwari Halka Chanakchi, Tehsil Koutputali, District Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Defendant-Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Gayatri Rathore For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kuldeep Sharma for Mr. Akshay Sharma, AGC HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA Judgment 13/08/2021 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the judgment & decree was passed by the court on 05.02.1997 after giving several opportunities to the respondent-State to appear and (Downloaded on 17/08/2021 at 10:06:56 PM) (2 of 2) [CW-8876/2011] finding that no one has put in appearance inspite of due service, and taking into consideration that no reasons have come forward in the application moved under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the trial court rejected the same.
Learned counsel further submits that the ADJ has without giving any further reason for allowing application, has merely opined that when there is a case on merits, the delay could be condoned, however, it has not reached to any conclusion that there was a case in favour of the petitioners as the State had not even filed its written statement.
Taking into consideration the overall aspects and considering the huge delay in moving an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, this Court does not find any reason to uphold the order passed by the Learned Additional District Judge dated 19.05.2011 and the same is accordingly set aside.
The writ petition is accordingly allowed. All pending applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.
(SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),J Karan/119 (Downloaded on 17/08/2021 at 10:06:56 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)