Rajasthan High Court
Hari Ram S/O Shri Mamraj vs Harphool Adopted S/O Jeeta Ram on 3 March, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
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
(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.
(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
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
