Rajasthan High Court
Ram Chandra Son Of Parma vs Harphool Son Of Kalua ... on 6 March, 2024
Author: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
Bench: Mahendar Kumar Goyal
[2024:RJ-JP:11557]
[2024:RJ-JP:11583]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18808/2022
1. Ram Chandra Son Of Parma, Resident Of Village Pachgav,
Tehsil And District Dholpur (Rajasthan) Died During Suit.
1/1. Keshar Devi Wife Of Late Ram Chandra
1/2. Kailashi Son Of Late Ram Chandra
1/3. Banti Son Of Late Ram Chandra
1/4. Bhikam Singh Son Of Late Ram Chandra
1/5. Shiv Singh Son Of Late Ram Chandra,
All are Resident Of Village Pachgav, Tehsil And District
Dholpur (Rajasthan).
1/6. Kaila Devi Daughter Of Late Ram Chandra, Wife Of
Narayan Singh, Resident Of Bagcholi Khaar, Tehsil And
District Dholpur (Rajasthan).
1/7. Omwati Daughter Of Ram Chandra, Wife Of Shiv Dayal,
Resident Of Ondela, Tehsil And District Dholpur
(Rajasthan).
----Plaintiff-Petitioners
Versus
1. Harphool Son Of Kalua, Aged About 54 Years, Resident Of
Village Pachgav, Tehsil And District Dholpur (Rajasthan).
2. Rama Devi Wife Of Krishan Murari, Aged About 36 Years,
Resident Of Village Pachgav, Tehsil And District Dholpur
(Rajasthan).
----Defendants-Respondents
Connected with
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18812/2022
1. Ram Chandra Son Of Parma, Resident Of Village
Pachgav, Tehsil And District Dholpur (Rajasthan) Died
During Suit.
1/1. Keshar Devi Wife Of Late Ram Chandra
1/2. Kailashi Son Of Late Ram Chandra
1/3. Banti Son Of Late Ram Chandra
1/4. Bhikam Singh Son Of Late Ram Chandra
1/5. Shiv Singh Son Of Late Ram Chandra,
All are Resident Of Village Pachgav, Tehsil And District
Dholpur (Rajasthan).
1/6. Kaila Devi Daughter Of Late Ram Chandra, Wife Of
Narayan Singh, Resident Of Bagcholi Khaar, Tehsil And
District Dholpur (Rajasthan).
1/7. Omwati Daughter Of Ram Chandra, Wife Of Shiv Dayal,
Resident Of Ondela, Tehsil And District Dholpur
(Rajasthan).
[2024:RJ-JP:11557] (2 of 4) [CW-18808/2022]
----Plaintiff-Petitioners
Versus
1. Harphool Son Of Kalua, Aged About 54 Years, Resident
Of Village Pachgav, Tehsil And District Dholpur
(Rajasthan).
2. Rama Devi Wife Of Krishan Murari, Aged About 36
Years, Resident Of Village Pachgav, Tehsil And District
Dholpur (Rajasthan).
----Defendats-Respondents
For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dheeraj Singhal
For Respondent(s) :
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL
Judgment / Order
06/03/2024
Since, the issue involved in both the writ petitions is
common, they are being tagged.
S.B. CWP No.18808/2022:-
This writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of
India has been filed by the petitioners/plaintiffs (for short "the
plaintiffs") assailing the legality and validity of the order dated
04.08.2022 passed by the learned Civil Judge, Dholpur
(Rajasthan) (for brevity "the learned trial Court") whereby, the
application No.13/2019 filed by the them under Section 151 CPC
read with Order 9 Rule 9 CPC has been dismissed.
The relevant facts in brief are that the predecessor-in-
interest of the petitioners-Shri Ram Chandra (hereinafter referred
to as "the plaintiff") filed a suit for specific performance against
the respondents/defendants (for short "the defendants") which
came to be dismissed in default by the learned trial Court vide
order dated 17.02.2010. An application filed by the plaintiff under
[2024:RJ-JP:11557] (3 of 4) [CW-18808/2022]
Order 9 Rule 9 CPC also came to be dismissed in default vide
order dated 12.05.2011. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed the instant
application as stated hereinabove which has been dismissed by
the learned trial Court vide order dated 04.08.2022.
Assailing the order, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits
that the petitioners are very poor persons and were not informed
by their counsel about dismissal of their application under Order 9
Rule 9 CPC in time. He submits that in view of the well settled
legal principle that a litigant should not suffer on account of
negligence on the part of his/her counsel, the order impugned
deserves to be quashed and set aside. He, therefore, prays that
the writ petition be allowed, the order dated 04.08.2022 be
quashed and set aside and the application filed by them under
Section 151 read with Order 9 Rule 9 CPC be allowed.
Heard. Considered.
While dismissing the application, the learned trial Court has
held that initially, the suit was dismissed in default on 24.05.2007;
however, on an application filed by the plaintiff under Order 9 Rule
9 CPC, it was restored on 08.02.2008. Thereafter, it was again
dismissed in default on 17.02.2010; however, the petitioners filed
yet another application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC which also came
to be dismissed in default on 12.05.2011. Thereafter, after lapse
of more than six years, another application came to be filed by the
petitioners under Section 151 read with Order 9 Rule 9 CPC on
18.07.2017 without furnishing any specific explanation for such an
inordinate delay in filing the application. The learned trial Court
further observed that no reason was assigned by the petitioners
as to why they did not contact their counsel for such a long
[2024:RJ-JP:11557] (4 of 4) [CW-18808/2022]
period. This Court has also gone through the subject application
filed by the petitioners and finds it to be bereft of any averment as
to why the petitioners did not contact their counsel for a period of
more than six years. The material on record also reflects that the
petitioners have not deposited the deficit stamp duty on the
subject agreement as assessed by the DIG, Stamp, Bharatpur as
is fairly admitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners before
this Court also that the same has not been deposited till date. It is
trite law that law comes to an aid to a vigilant litigant and not to
an indolent person. In the present case, the plaintiffs have been in
gross negligence in pursuing the proceeding throughout before the
learned trial Court and in view thereof, in the considered opinion
of this Court, the learned trial Court did not err in dismissing the
application filed by them.
This Court finds no reason under its limited supervisory
jurisdiction to interfere with the well reasoned order passed by the
learned trial Court based on appreciation of material on record in
its exercise of its judicious discretion.
Resultantly, this writ petition is dismissed being devoid of
merit.
S.B. CWP No.18812/2022:-
In view of the aforesaid order, learned counsel for the
petitioners/plaintiffs does not press this civil writ petition.
The civil writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
(MAHENDAR KUMAR GOYAL),J
Manish/106-107
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
