Harbhajan Meena vs Babu Lal And Anr
2023 Latest Caselaw 5780 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:27718]

        HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                    BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 70/2005

Harbhajan Meena S/o Somya Meena, Aged 56 years, R/o
Pipliwada Tehsil Boli, District Sawaimadhopur, Rajasthan
                                                                    ----Petitioner
                                    Versus
1. Babu Lal S/o Harinarayan Meena, R/o Pipalwada, Tehsil Boli
District Sawaimadhopur
2. Jaina S/o Mohan Lal Meena R/o Pipalwada, Tehsil Boli District
Sawaimadhopur
2/1 Dhapu Wife of Jaina, aged 70 years,
2/2 Kailash S/o Jaina, aged 44 years
2/3 Ramkesh S/o Jaina, aged 38 years
2/4 Manthra W/o Chiranjilal (death) S/o Jaina
2/5 Murari S/o Chiranjilal (death) S/o Jaina
Respondent No.2/1 to 2/5 R/o Pipalwada, Tehsil Boli District

Sawaimadhopur

----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. V. L. Mathur, Adv.

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Achintya Kaushik, Adv.

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT 09/10/2023

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the

petitioner against the order dated 15.04.2005 passed by the

District Judge, Sawaimadhopur in Civil Misc. Case No.12/2000,

whereby the application under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC filed by the

petitioner for re-hearing the appeal No.49/96 titled as Babu Lal

Vs. Harbhajan Meena has been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appellate

court wrongly dismissed the application filed by the petitioner

[2023:RJ-JP:27718] (2 of 3) [CR-70/2005]

under Order 41 Rule 21 CPC vide order dated 15.04.2005.

Learned counsel for the petitioner also submits that respondents

had filed an appeal against the judgment dated 20.08.1996

passed by the trial court. Notices of the appeal were not served

upon the petitioner. Process server had wrongly reported that

petitioner denied to accept the notices. Learned counsel for the

petitioner also submits that process server had not complied with

the provision of Order 5 Rule 17 and 18 CPC. He had not pasted

the notices on denial by the petitioner. So, order of the appellate

court dated 15.04.2015 be set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance upon

the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sushil Kumar

Sabharwal Vs. Gurpreet Singh & Ors. reported in (2002) 5

SCC 377.

Learned counsel for the respondents has opposed the

arguments advanced by learned counsel for the petitioner and

submitted that respondents had adduced the evidence of process

server before the trial court in which he clearly stated that

petitioner had denied to accept the notices. So, he had made

endorsement on the notice. So, service of the petitioner was

sufficient and he had knowledge of the judgment dated

20.03.1998 on 05.04.1998 but he had filed an application for

recalling the judgment on 12.05.2000. He had not furnished bona

fide reasons for delay. So, appellate court rightly dismissed the

application filed by the petitioner. So, revision petition be

dismissed.

[2023:RJ-JP:27718] (3 of 3) [CR-70/2005]

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the

respondents.

Appellate Court while dismissing the application filed by the

petitioner clearly mentioned that process server Pyare Lal Jatav

had served the notice to the petitioner but petitioner denied to

accept it. Process server had made endorsement on notice.

Petitioner also had knowledge of judgment dated 20.03.1998 on

05.04.1998 but he had filed an application after a long delay on

12.05.2000. So, in my considered opinion, the appellate court had

not committed any error in dismissing the application filed by the

petitioner. So, present revision petition being devoid of merit, is

liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /05

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)