Jharkhand High Court
Sanjay Sahu vs Anita Devi on 27 January, 2025
Author: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
Bench: Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
C.M.P. No. 54 of 2024
Sanjay Sahu, aged about 45 years, son of late Lala Sahu, resident of village
Lower Chutia, P.O. and P.S. Chutia, District-Ranchi
.......Petitioner
... Versus....
1. Anita Devi, wife of Sri Mani Sahu, resident of village Lower Chutia, P.O.
and P.S. Chutia, District-Ranchi
2. Money Sahu, son of late Lala Sahu
3. Rathni Devi, wife of late Chandru Sahu,
All at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 are residents of Lower Chutia, P.O. and P.S.
Chutia, District-Ranchi
...... Opposite Parties
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI
For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate
For the Opp. Parties :
..........
04/Dated: 27/01/2025
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of
India for quashing of the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned
Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-XVIII, Ranchi in Civil Miscellaneous Case
No. 26/2017, arising out of Execution Case No. 18/2013 (B), arising out of Title
Suit No. 200/2009 whereby the petition filed by the defendant no.1/judgment
debtor No.1 under Order IX Rule 13 for setting aside the judgment and decree
dated 18.07.2013 and 30.07.2013 passed by Additional Munsif-II, Ranchi in
Title Suit No. 200/2009 has been allowed setting aside the judgment and
decree passed in Title Suit No. 200/2009.
3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits
that by the impugned order the learned court has been pleased to restore the
said suit without considering the limitation as well as abatement and further
the date is not fixed for further proceeding in view of that the said order is
illegal.
4. From perusal of order of the learned court, it transpires that the
decree was ex parte. The contention was made on behalf of the opposite
parties that they have come to know about the proceeding seeing the paper
publication in execution case and thereafter she contacted her lawyer and
appeared in execution case. Thereafter she came to know about the previous
judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 200/2009. P.W.2 has stated
before the learned court that she is illiterate woman has no knowledge of the
case and therefore could not appear and put forth her case. She has further
stated that Sanjay Sahu is her brother-in-law and said Sanjay Sahu never got
the land in question in partition and she has got right over the property by
virtue of marriage.
5. It is settled law that mere title is not decisive for deciding the
nature of the application. There appears to be no bar as such for filing
consolidate application for relief. One under Order XXII Rule 3 and 4 of C.P.C.
and another under Order XXII Rule 9 C.P.C. and for condonation of delay
under section 5 of Limitation Act. Even if rules of procedure require for filing
separate application for separate reliefs, even then there can be no justification
for filing three separate applications when the reliefs sought in three
applications are connected or when the reliefs sought are dependent upon
relief required to be obtained for getting complete relief.
6. By praying for condition of delay and on condonation of delay by
the order of the Court, the relief in application under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC can
be granted and when above two reliefs are granted, then only relief under
Order XXII Rule 3 or Rule 4 CPC can be granted. In a case where the relief of
setting aside of abatement has not been specifically claimed, the court may
consider the complete application to find out what is the prayer and if case is
made out for condonation of delay and for setting aside of abatement of
proceedings, the Court may condone the delay, may set aside abatement of the
suit/appeal even without specific prayer.
7. Looking into the contention made in the said petition, the learned
court has passed the said order. There is no illegality in the order that too
against the judgment and decree passed ex parte and by way of imposing cost
of Rs. 5,000/-, the said petition was allowed.
8. There is no illegality in the order. Accordingly, this petition is
dismissed.
9. The learned court shall proceed in accordance with law by way of
providing the dates to the parties.
( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.)
Satyarthi/-.
