RAJ KUMAR Vs. SARDARI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Leave granted.

(2.) During the pendency of a civil suit relating to an immovable property, respondent No. 4 herein purchased the suit property from the defendants (respondent Nos. 2 and 3) by a registered deed of sale dated 24-9-1995. The respondent No. 4, it appears, was not aware of the pendency of the suit; rather the vendors stated in the deed of sale that the property was not a subject-matter of any litigation. On 27-11-1995, the suit was decreed ex parte against the defendants (respondent Nos. 2 and 3). On 30-5-1998, the respondent No. 4 filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC seeking setting aside of the decree and also making a prayer under Order 22, Rule 10 of the CPC for being brought on record. Prayer was also made for condoning the delay in filing the application inasmuch as the ex parte decree was not in the knowledge of the respondent No. 4. The trial Court has allowed the application condoning the delay in filing the same and held that a sufficient cause for setting aside the decree within the meaning of Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC was made out. The appellant preferred a civil revision in the High Court which has been dismissed.

(3.) The only plea raised and vehemently urged by Shri S. N. Mishra, the learned senior counsel for the appellant before this Court, as was done before the trial Court and the High Court too, is that an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the CPC can be filed only by a defendant and by no one else. The respondent No. 4 is a transferee pendente lite and in the absence of his having promptly taken steps under Order 22, Rule 10 of the CPC for being brought on record, he remains bound by the result of the suit. He must suffer the consequences of an adverse decree passed against his vendors who have not chosen to lay any challenge to the ex parte decree, submitted the learned counsel.