Rajasthan High Court
Devilal S/O Sharwan vs Birdhi Lal S/O Hema on 15 March, 2022
Bench: Sudesh Bansal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil First Appeal No. 415/2021
1. Devilal S/o Sharwan, Resident Of Chatrapura, Tehsil And
District Bundi (Raj.) (Ex Party Order Dated 28.02.2019)
2. Mahaveer S/o Panna, Resident Of Chatrapura, Tehsil And
District Bundi (Raj.) (Ex Party Order Dated 28.02.2019)
3. Ladu Lal S/o Panna Lal, Resident Of Chatrapura, Tehsil
And District Bundi (Raj.) (Ex Party Order Dated
28.02.2019)
4. Dayaram S/o Panna, Resident Of Chatrapura, Tehsil And
District Bundi (Raj.) (Ex Party Order Dated 28.02.2019)
5. Chothmal S/o Panna, Resident Of Chatrapura, Tehsil And
District Bundi (Raj.) (Ex Party Order Dated 28.02.2019)
----Appellants
Versus
1. Birdhi Lal S/o Hema, Resident Of Chatrapura, Tehsil And
District Bundi (Raj.)
2. Sub Registrar, Registrar Office, Bundi (Raj.)
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Praveen Kumar Jain
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Deepak Pareek for Plaintiff-
respondent No.1
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDESH BANSAL
Order
15/03/2022
The appeal has been filed by the appellant-defendants,
assailing judgment and decree dated 31.07.2019 passed by
Additional District Judge No.1, Bundi (Raj.), whereby suit
No.124/2010 (CIS No.585/2014) for specific performance of
contract and permanent injunction has been decreed by the
respondents in relation to 1/3 share in land of Khasra No.1394
(2 of 3) [CFA-415/2021]
(6 bigha 17 biswa) situated at Villate Chatrapura, District Bundi
and consequently, sale deed of appellants dated 09.04.2010 has
also been cancelled.
Learned counsel for respondent-plaintiffs has appeared as
caveator.
Heard counsel for both parties and it is submitted that First
Appeal is delayed by 743 days as pointed out by Office.
An application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act has been
filed. It has been mentioned inter-alia that Advocate for
defendants pleaded no instructions before trial court and they
came to know about impugned judgment during course of
pendency of another criminal case No.295/2016 in relation to
same subject matter. It has also been mentioned that from March,
2010 onwards, Hon'ble Apex Court has extended limitation due to
Pendemic Covid-19.
Learned counsel for respondents has opposed application for
condonation of delay.
Looking to nature of dispute in First Appeal and for reasons
mentioned in the application filed under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act, supported with an affidavit, this Court deems it just and
proper to condone delay in filing First Appeal. Application under
Section 5 of the Limitation Act stands allowed.
Heard counsel for both parties on stay application.
Admit.
Issue notice.
As counsel has appeared for plaintiff-respondent No.1 thus
notice need not be issued to him. Defendant-Respondent No.2 the
Sub-Registrar is proforma respondent, he is not required to be
served, thus service is complete.
(3 of 3) [CFA-415/2021]
Heard on stay application.
During course of First Appeal, execution and operation of
impugned judgment and decree dated 31.07.2019 shall remain
stayed till further direction.
Both parties are directed to maintain status quo as to
alienation and possession in relation to property.
Stay application stands disposed of.
(SUDESH BANSAL),J
Sunita/51
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
