Ashok Kumar Chaudhary And Another vs Kripal Singh And 2 Others
2025 Latest Caselaw 2968 ALL

Allahabad High Court

Ashok Kumar Chaudhary And Another vs Kripal Singh And 2 Others on 3 January, 2025

Author: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

Bench: Rohit Ranjan Agarwal

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:1063
 
Court No. - 9
 

 
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 16193 of 2024
 

 
Petitioner :- Ashok Kumar Chaudhary And Another
 
Respondent :- Kripal Singh And 2 Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Rama Goel Bansal,Shalini Goel
 

 
Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.
 

Supplementary affidavit, filed today, is taken on record.

This is defendants' petition.

This writ petition has been filed with the following prayer:-

"(i) To set aside the judgment and decree dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure No. 1 to the petition) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 2, Mathura passed in Misc. Case No. 600 of 2024.

(ii) To set aside the judgment and decree dated 19.10.2024 (Annexure no. 2 to the petition) passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Mathura passed in original suit no. 258 of 2026.

(iii) To issue a direction, directing the Court below to pass an appropriate order on the application paper no. 6C filed in Misc. Case No. 600 of 2024."

The plaintiff-respondent no.1 had instituted a Civil Suit No.258 of 2016 which was decreed ex-parte on 19.10.2024. The defendant-petitioners had moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for recall of the ex-parte decree dated 19.10.2024.

In the present writ petition, petitioners have challenged the order dated 12.12.2024, which was passed on their application moved under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC registering the same and fixing 12.01.2025 for further orders. The second prayer made in the writ petition is for setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated 19.10.2024.

The first and second prayers made in the writ petition cannot be granted as against the ex-parte judgment, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC lies, or a regular civil appeal under Section 96 CPC lies. No matter under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is maintainable.

As the petitioners themselves have moved the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, they cannot seek setting aside the judgment dated 12.12.2024 by which their application was ordered to be registered and heard. Thus, writ petition is totally misconceived and is not maintainable.

However, when the Court was going to dismiss the writ petition, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that as application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is pending consideration, the same may be decided expeditiously.

In view of the prayer made by learned counsel for the petitioners, the Court below is hereby directed to proceed with the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC as expeditiously as possible after hearing all the concerned parties.

With the aforesaid observations, present writ petition stands disposed of.

Order Date :- 3.1.2025

SK Goswami