Jodha Singh vs Sheo Ram
2023 Latest Caselaw 4764 Raj/2

[2023:RJ-JP:21575]

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                     BENCH AT JAIPUR

                S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 87/2008

Jodha Singh Son of Sh. Soki Singh, Resident of Village
Alameeka, Tehsil Kishangarh-Bas, District Alwar
                                                                      ----Petitioner
                                     Versus
Sheo Ram Son of Sh. Balia Ram, Resident of Village Kakrali,
Tehsil Tizara, District Alwar.
                                                                    ----Respondent

For Petitioner(s)          :     Mr. Raj Kamal Gaur, Adv.
For Respondent(s)          :     Mr. Dinesh Yadav, Adv.



     HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

                                  Judgment

DATE OF JUDGMENT                                                  12/09/2023

The present Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the

petitioner-judgment debtor against the order dated 31.03.2008

passed by the Executing Court in Civil Misc. Application

No.22/2007, whereby the application filed by the petitioner-

judgment debtor under Section 151 CPC for setting aside the

ex-parte order and for cancellation of registered sale deed has

been dismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor submits

that the executing court wrongly dismissed the application filed by

the petitioner-judgment debtor under Section 151 CPC. Learned

counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor also submits that

respondent-decree holder had filed a suit for specific performance

and permanent injunction against the petitioner-judgment debtor.

That suit was ex-parte decreed against the petitioner-judgment

[2023:RJ-JP:21575] (2 of 4) [CR-87/2008]

debtor. Petitioner-judgment debtor had filed an application under

Order 9 Rule 13 CPC before the trial court. The said application

was also dismissed by the trial court vide order dated 21.03.2003.

After that, respondent-decree holder had filed execution petition.

Learned Executing Court had issued notice to the petitioner-

judgment debtor under Order 21 Rule 22 CPC. Petitioner-

judgment debtor never appeared before the Executing Court but

presence of the petitioner-judgment debtor was wrongly marked

in the ordersheets dated 01.05.2003 and 03.07.2003. These

ordersheets did not bear any signature of the petitioner-judgment

debtor. So, learned Executing Court wrongly proceeded ex-parte

against the petitioner-judgment debtor on 07.08.2003. Learned

counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor also submits that

respondent-decree holder had not deposited the amount within

fixed period as per the decree. The period had already expired and

it was never extended by the Court, which passed the decree.

Executing Court had no power for extension of time. Learned

counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor also submits that draft

of the sale deed was not sent to the petitioner-judgment debtor.

So, order dated 31.03.2008 passed by the learned Executing

Court be set aside.

Learned counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor has

placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Ramankutty

Guptan Vs. Avara reported in AIR 1994 SC 1699; (2) Sageer

& Ors. Vs. Mumtaz & Ors. in Civil Revision No.60/2010

decided on 13.08.2021 and (3) P. Shyamala Vs. Gundlur

Masthan in Civil Appeal Nos.1363-1364 of 2023 decided on

24.02.2023.

[2023:RJ-JP:21575] (3 of 4) [CR-87/2008]

Learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder has

opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the

petitioner-judgment debtor and submitted that petitioner-

judgment debtor had not contested the suit. So, ex-parte

proceeding was initiated against him and ex-parte decree was

passed by the trial court on 09.02.1998. Thereafter, application for

setting aside the ex-parte decree was filed by the petitioner-

judgment debtor and same was dismissed by the trial court.

Learned counsel for the respondent-decree holder also submitted

that the petitioner-judgment debtor had not preferred the appeal

against the said order. So, order passed by the trial court attained

finality. Learned executing court rightly dismissed the application

filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor under Section 151 CPC.

So, Civil Revision Petition be dismissed.

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the petitioner-judgment debtor as well as learned

counsel for the respondent-decree holder.

It is an admitted position that ex-parte decree was passed

against the petitioner-judgment debtor and application under

Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor was

also dismissed by the trial court. Thereafter, the executing court in

execution petition filed by the respondent-decree holder ordered

for registration of sale deed. So, in my considered opinion,

petitioner-judgment debtor had no right to object the execution

proceedings. So, the executing court rightly dismissed the

application filed by the petitioner-judgment debtor under Section

151 CPC. So, present revision petition being devoid of merit, is

liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly.

[2023:RJ-JP:21575] (4 of 4) [CR-87/2008]

Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /22

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)