RAVINDRA PAL SING NEGI Vs. COMMISSIONER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT petition is filed assailing the judgment and order dated 26.09.2013 passed by Commissioner, Kumaon Division as well as order dated 10.05.2013 passed by Assistant Collector, First Class, Bhawar, Haldwani, Nainital rejecting the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act seeking condonation of delay in moving restoration application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 08.04.2010.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the present case inter alia are that plaintiff /respondents no. 3 and 4, herein, filed revenue suit no. 22/165 of 2002 in the court of Assistant Collector, First Class, Bhawar, Haldwani against Ganga Devi, (mother of petitioners and respondent no. 5, herein) as well as against the State Government and Gram Sabha, Bacchi Nagar, seeking declaration to the effect that plaintiff /respondents no. 3 and 4, herein, be declared as Bhoomidhar with transferable rights of the property, in question, in view of the fact that plaintiffs have matured their title by way of adverse possession against Smt. Ganga Devi original defendant no. 3. During the pendency of suit, Smt. Ganga Devi expired, consequently, petitioners as well as respondent no. 5, herein, were substituted as legal heirs of Smt. Ganga Devi as defendants no. 3/1, 3/2 and 3/3 vide order dated 09.04.2003. Substituted LRs of Ganga Devi original defendant no. 3 i.e. petitioners as well as respondent no. 5 filed their additional written statement. Substituted LRs of Ganga Devi original defendant no. 3 i.e. petitioners and respondent no. 5 initially contested the suit, however, after some time they remained absent, consequently, vide order dated 07.11.2008 suit was directed to be proceeded ex parte and suit was ultimately decreed ex parte against the LRs of Ganga Devi original defendant no. 3 vide judgment and order dated 08.04.2010. On 15.02.2012, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the order dated 08.04.2010 was moved before the trial court along with application seeking condonation of delay in moving the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

(3.) VIDE impugned order dated 10.05.2013, learned trial court was pleased to dismiss the application seeking condonation of delay in moving the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and consequently, application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC also came to be dismissed.