SEWAK RAM PANDEY Vs. JITENDRA GOYAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard on admission.

(2.) The undisputed facts of the case, are that, the plaintiff- Jitendra Goyal instituted a suit claiming declaration of title, permanent injunction and also for declaration that the exparte judgment and decree dated 27/10/2010 as passed in Civil Suit No. 21-A/2009 be declared as null and void. According to the plaintiff, he had purchased the suit property described in plaint para-1 by virtue of a registered deed of sale, dated 20/12/2005 and as such, had acquired his interest over it. It is pleaded further that since he had already purchased the suit property in the year 2005, therefore, the Civil Suit No. 21-A/2009 for specific performance of contract based upon an agreement to sale executed on 30/07/2008 by his vendor namely R. K. Dubey in favour of defendant No. 1- Sewak Ram Pandey and the judgment and decree delivered pursuant thereto, is apparently obtained by playing fraud upon him.

(3.) Upon receiving the summons of the suit, defendant No. 1- Sewak Ram Pandey has filed an application as per the provision prescribed under Order 7 Rule 11 of CPC praying that the suit as framed by the plaintiff is apparently barred by law and liable to be rejected. It is pleaded further in the application that the exparte judgment and decree was passed by the competent Court and the application for its setting aside under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC was also refused and by efflux of time, the said judgment and decree has attained its finality, and as such the suit as framed and instituted is not sustainable. It is pleaded further that the part of the suit property, bearing Kh. Nos. 383/2 and 402 have already been acquired by the Land Acquisition Officer for widening up the National Highway, therefore, the suit as framed and instituted cannot be held to be validly instituted before the Court and therefore, liable to be rejected.