Har Chand vs Addi District Judge And Ors
2021 Latest Caselaw 3685 Raj/2

                                          (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

(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

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)