HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 41/2022
1. Hari Ram S/o Shri Mamraj, Resident Of Bhagera Tehsil
Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).
2. Jai Ram S/o Shri Mamraj, Resident Of Bhagera Tehsil
Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).
3. Girdhari S/o Shri Mamraj, Resident Of Bhagera Tehsil
Nawalgarh, District Jhunjhunu (Rajasthan).
----Petitioners
Versus
Harphool Adopted S/o Jeeta Ram, R/o Bhagera Tehsil Nawalgarh
District Jhunjhunu,
----Respondent
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Brij Bhushan Ojha
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
03/03/2022
By way of this revision petition, petitioners-plaintiffs have assailed the order dated 11.01.2022 passed by Additional District Judge No.1, Jhunjhunu whereby and whereunder an application filed by respondent-defendant under order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been allowed and ex parte judgment and decree for specific performance dated 16.01.2018 has been set aside.
The relevant facts as culled out from the record are that plaintiffs filed a civil suit for specific performance of contract against defendant on the basis of an agreement to sell dated 06.08.2009 in relation to agriculture land of Khasra No.312, for its part of 0.22 hectare. In suit, the defendant appeared and the (Downloaded on 05/03/2022 at 08:56:43 PM) (2 of 3) [CR-41/2022] agreement in question was sent to the Collector, Stamps for the purpose of proper stamping. At that stage, on 14.11.2017, the defendant did not appear before the trial court and the trial court proceed with trial of suit ex parte against the defendant, and decreed the suit vide judgment dated 16.01.2018.
It further reveals from the record that defendant initially challenged the ex parte judgment and decree dated 16.01.2018 by way of filing civil first appeal on 23.05.2018 but later on withdrew his appeal on 01.04.2021 with liberty to file an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree. Thereafter the defendant filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC on 06.07.2021.
The trial court vide impugned order dated 11.01.2022 considered factual matrix and observed that the delay deserves to be condoned and further the reasons assigned by defendant for his non-appearance before the trial court on 14.11.2017 are reasonable and sufficient. Accordingly, the trial court after considering facts and circumstances of the present case has granted an opportunity to defendant to contest the civil suit for specific performance, and set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 16.01.2018.
Counsel for petitioners submits that application filed by respondent under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is not bona fide and due to such proceedings at the behest of defendant, plaintiffs have suffered a delay of four years. They had succeeded in their suit, however, again would be forced to contest suit proceedings. Therefore, at least the trial court should have compensated plaintiffs for the delay and sufferance, at the behest of defendant. (Downloaded on 05/03/2022 at 08:56:43 PM)
(3 of 3) [CR-41/2022] After hearing counsel for petitioners and perusing the impugned order, this Court is of the opinion that in the scope of revision petition, the impugned order does not require any interference. If the impugned order is allowed to sustain, the same would not occasion any failure of justice to any parties. As far as prayer for cost as claimed by plaintiffs is concerned, they may raise such argument before the trial court at the time of final hearing of suit.
With aforesaid observations, the revision petition is dismissed.
All pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J SAURABH/16 (Downloaded on 05/03/2022 at 08:56:43 PM) Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)