[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Executive Officer vs Pooranmal (2026:Rj-Jd:8324) on 13 February, 2026
Author: Rekha Borana
Bench: Rekha Borana
[2026:RJ-JD:8324]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
S.B. Civil Misc. Appeal No. 927/2026
Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Nawa, District- Deedwana-
Kuchaman, Rajasthan Through Its Shikesh Kankariya Son Of Shri
Kamal Kankariya, Age About 31, Working As Executive Officer,
Municipality, Nawa.
----Appellant
Versus
1. Pooranmal S/o Shri Jeevan, R/o- Ward No. 4, Nawa,
District Didwana-Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
2. Smt Puspa Devi W/o Shri Pooranmal, R/o- Ward No. 4,
Nawa, District Didwana-Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
3. Smt Santosh Devi D/o Shri Pooranmal, R/o- Ward No. 4,
Nawa, District Didwana-Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
4. Ganesh Prasad S/o Shri Pooranmal, R/o- Ward No. 4,
Nawa, District Didwana-Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
5. Hariram S/o Shri Pooranmal, Through Natural Guardian
Father Poranmal S/o Jeevan, R/o- Ward No. 4, Nawa,
District Didwana-Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
6. Ms Yasoda D/o Shri Pooranmal, Through Natural Guardian
Father Pooranmal S/o Shri Jeevan, R/o- Ward No. 4,
Nawa, District Didwana-Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
7. State Of Rajasthan, Through District Collector, Deedwana-
Kuchaman, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Purohit
For Respondent(s) : Mr. B.S. Mertiya
HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA
Order
13/02/2026
1. The present misc. appeal has been filed aggrieved of order
dated 03.02.2026 passed by the learned Additional District Judge,
(Uploaded on 15/02/2026 at 11:39:59 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8324] (2 of 5) [CMA-927/2026]
Kuchaman City, District Didwana-Kuchaman (hereinafter referred
to as the 'learned Trial Court') in Civil Misc. Case No.35/2025
whereby application under Order IX Rule 13 r/w Section 151, CPC
as filed on behalf of the applicant, stood dismissed.
2. The facts are that a suit for compensation under Section 1 A
of the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855 was filed by the respondents on
20.07.2024. Notices in the said suit were served on defendant
No.1 i.e. the Executive Officer of the concerned municipality on
08.01.2025 and on the Collector (vide registered notice), on
21.12.2024. However, none appeared for the defendants and
hence the Court, vide order dated 17.02.2025, directed to proceed
ex parte against the defendants.
3. Ultimately, vide order dated 21.08.2025, the suit stood
decreed for an amount of Rs.11,36,360/- with interest @ 5.50%.
4. Execution petition was filed by the plaintiffs and after the
notices of the said application been served on the judgment
debtors, application under Order IX Rule 13, CPC was filed on
18.12.2025 by the appellant i.e. the Executive Officer of the
Municipal Council.
5. Vide order impugned dated 03.02.2026, the learned Trial
Court proceeded on to reject the application with two specific
findings: firstly, the notices in the suit were very well served on
the defendants and the said fact had not been denied. The only
submission made was that the defendant was not informed of the
said suit proceedings. Secondly, no sufficient cause for non
appearance on the date fixed, was shown by the applicant.
6. Counsel for the appellant submits that firstly, the service was
not proper in the suit proceedings and secondly, application under
(Uploaded on 15/02/2026 at 11:39:59 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8324] (3 of 5) [CMA-927/2026]
Order IX Rule 13 was filed soon after the service of the notices of
the execution proceedings and the same deserved to be allowed
as the applicant was a public authority and the decreetal amount if
required to be paid, would be a loss to the public exchequer.
7. Counsel submits that one opportunity deserves to be granted
to the appellant to defend the case of the plaintiff.
8. Per contra counsel for the respondents submits that once it
was established on record that the notices in the suit proceedings
were duly served on the defendants, they were under an
obligation to appear. In absence thereof, the Court rightly
proceeded ex parte against them.
9. Counsel further submits that no sufficient cause for non-
appearance has been pleaded by the appellant even in the present
appeal.
10. Counsel lastly submits that on one hand, time to deposit the
decreetal amount was prayed for by the appellants in the
execution proceedings and on the other hand, present application
in question was filed.
11. Heard the Counsels. Perused on record.
12. The fact that the notices issued in the suit proceedings were
duly served on both the defendants is not controverted. Although
counsel for the appellants raised a ground that the service was not
proper but he could not explain as to why it was not proper.
Learned Trial Court specifically recorded a finding that notice of
the Executive Officer of the Municipality was served in his office
and the seal of the office clearly reflected so.
(Uploaded on 15/02/2026 at 11:39:59 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8324] (4 of 5) [CMA-927/2026]
13. So far as the service on Collector is concerned, he was
served through a registered notice and acknowledgment receipt of
the same was duly received after service.
14. The Court therefore, while relying on Order V Rule 18, CPC;
Clause 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897; and Order XIX Rule 2
of the General Rules (Civil and Criminal), 2018 held the service to
be sufficient and in accordance with law.
15. In the specific opinion of this Court, the findings as recorded
by the learned Trial Court are totally in consonance with the
provisions governing the service on the defendants.
16. Further, the judgment in Parimal Vs. Veena @ Bharti;
(2011) 3 SCC 545 as relied upon by the learned Trial Court also
governs the situation as to when the Court can consider a cause to
be a sufficient cause.
17. Herein, it is evident that despite service of notice, the
defendants did not chose to put in appearance and hence, the
Court decided to proceed ex parte. The only reason assigned by
the appellant-defendant was that he was not aware of the suit
proceedings. The same was not termed to be a 'sufficient cause'
by the learned Trial Court and rightly so.
18. Further, this Court is of the clear opinion that a liberal
approach cannot be adopted only for the reason that the appellant
is a public authority. The public authority is rather under a
bounden duty to act within the time stipulated by law, it being
equipped with better infrastructural facilities as well as dedicated
legal cell for the said purposes. If the public authorities expect law
abiding citizens in the society, the citizens too deserve law abiding
government officers. Law neither permits discrimination nor extra
(Uploaded on 15/02/2026 at 11:39:59 AM)
[2026:RJ-JD:8324] (5 of 5) [CMA-927/2026]
privilege to public authorities. All are equal before law and the
principles of law have to be applied with the same rigour on all.
19. In view of the above overall analysis, no case for interference
in the order impugned is made out and the appeal is hence,
dismissed.
20. Stay petition and pending applications, if any, stand
disposed of.
(REKHA BORANA),J
17-manila/-
(Uploaded on 15/02/2026 at 11:39:59 AM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
