Ranjeet Meel S/O Late Shri Dhan ... vs Dr. Vinod Kumar S/O Shri Maliram
2022 Latest Caselaw 7505 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                 S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2157/2020

Ranjeet Meel S/o Late Shri Dhan Singh, Aged About 59 Years,
R/o    Mukandgarh       Mandi,       Sikar      Road,       Jhunjhunu     District
Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1.      Dr. Vinod Kumar S/o Shri Maliram, Aged About 63 Years,
        R/o Plot No. D-11, Ambabadi, Jaipur
2.      Smt. Shanti Devi W/o Late Shri Dhan Singh, R/o Village
        And Post Balria, District Jhunjhunu (Since Deceased)
        Through Legal Heirs
3.      Rampal Meel S/o Late Shri Dhan Singh, R/o Mukandgarh
        Mandi, Sikar Road, Jhunjhunu District Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
4.      Smt. Sharawani Devi W/o Shri Kailash D/o Late Shri Dhan
        Singh, R/o G-6, Adarsh Colony, Riico Industrial Area, Near
        Railway Station, Jhunjhunu (Raj.)
5.      Anurag Arya S/o Shri Rameshwar Lal, By Caste Jat, R/o
        Plot No. A-16, Bo Peep School, Khatipura Road, Jhotwara,
        Jaipur
6.      Smt. Sheetal Takkar W/o Shri Kalpesh Takkar, R/o Plot
        No. C-232-B, Nirman Nagar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur
                                                                 ----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. J. K. Moolchandani, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Bipin Gupta, Adv.

Mr. Mahendra Singh Yadav, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 22.11.2022

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 28.11.2022

This Civil Writ Petition under Article 227 of the

Constitution Of India has been filed by the petitioner against the

(2 of 3) [CW-2157/2020]

order dated 15.01.2020 passed by learned Additional District &

Sessons Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan in Civil Suit

No.173/2009, whereby application under Order 9 Rule 7 with

application under Section 5 of Limitation Act was dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner had filed an application before the learned trial Court

under Order 9 Rule 7 read with Section 151 CPC but learned trial

Court vide order dated 15.01.2020 wrongly dismissed the

application. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that

the petitioner was made party in suit on account of death of

respondent No.2. Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits

that in the application of substituting the legal heirs of respondent

No.2, address of the petitioner was wrongly mentioned that he

was residing at Mukadgarh Mandi, Sikar Road, Jhunjhunu. Learned

counsel for the petitioner further submits that the petitioner is

residing at Plot No.A/11, Harihar Vihar, Machada, Harmada,

District Jaipur for last 8 to 10 years. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also submits that neither he nor his family members

were residing there. His service was wrongly done in Registered

AD. Someone has wrongly put the signature on behalf of him.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that respondent

No.1 had threatened him on 04.12.2019 that he will obtain ex-

parte decree against him. So, he had filed the present application

for setting-aside the ex-parte proceedings. So, ex-parte

proceedings initiated against the petitioner be set aside in the

interest of Justice.

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1 has opposed

the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

(3 of 3) [CW-2157/2020]

submitted that the petitioner was duly served. There is no

evidence that his service was fake. So, petition be dismissed.

Learned counsel for the respondent has placed reliance

upon the judgment passed by the Delhi High Court in the case of

Sandeep Kumar Mangla, Vs. Geeta Bajaj reported in 2014(3)

ADR(NOC) 2011 (DEL.)

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondent and perused the impugned order.

Learned trial Court in its order clearly stated that

petitioner was well aware of the proceedings. He had not

submitted any document that he was presently residing in Harihar

Vihar, Machada, Harmada, District Jaipur. Learned trial Court

rightly came to the conclusion that signatures of the petitioner on

his service of summon are similar with the signature on his

application. So, in my considered opinion, learned trial Court had

not committed any error in rejecting the application filed by the

petitioner for setting aside ex-parte proceeding. So, present

petition is being devoid of merits and liable to be dismissed.

Hence, this Civil Writ Petition stands dismissed.

Stay application also stands dismissed.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Gourav/75

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)