Smt. Usha Rani vs Keshav Ram
2022 Latest Caselaw 21057 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 

?Court No. - 6
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 4881 of 2022
 

 
Petitioner :- Smt. Usha Rani
 
Respondent :- Keshav Ram
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Madhulika Yadav
 

 
Hon'ble Abdul Moin,J.

Heard.

Instant petition has been filed aggrieved against the order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the learned Revisional Court whereby the revision filed by the petitioner/plaintiff has been dismissed.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that the father in law of the petitioner namely Ram Pherey had filed a suit against the defendants which was decided ex-parte vide judgment and order dated 18.12.2006, a copy of which is Annexure-4 to the petition. Subsequent thereto, the defendants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The learned trial court vide order dated 17.05.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-2 to the petition, allowed the said application on the ground that there is sufficient cause which has been shown by the defendants for their non-appearance.

Being aggrieved, the plaintiff filed a revision before the revisional court which has been dismissed vide judgment and order dated 02.12.2022, a copy of which is Annexure-1 to the petition.

The contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that both the courts below have patently erred in law while allowing the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 inasmuch as summons were sufficiently served on the defendants and as such there would not be any occasion for the defendants to have done the disappearing act in the suit and thereafter when the suit was decided to have filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 which aspect of the matter has not been considered by both the courts below.

However, a perusal of the order passed by the learned trial court dated 17.05.2022 as well as the judgment and order dated 02.12.2022 passed by the revisional court would indicate that both the courts below have clearly indicated that sufficient cause has been shown by the defendants for their non-appearance which led the suit filed by the plaintiff to be decided ex-parte. The provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 are not only confined to the due service of summons rather the other provision is that in case a party is able to satisfy that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court may set-aside the decree against him upon certain terms and conditions.

Both the learned trial court and the revisional Court have specifically given findings that the reasons indicated by the defendants for their non-appearance are sufficient.

Keeping in the view the aforesaid findings which have been given by the learned trial court and the revisional court no case for interference is made out. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed.

It is expected that the learned trial court shall decide the suit pending before it in accordance with law after hearing all the parties concerned expeditiously.

Order Date :- 14.12.2022

A. Katiyar