MAHRUNNISHA Vs. DISTRICT JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY means of present writ petition, petitioner has challenged? the order of the Court below by which? his delay condonation? application? filed along with application under order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been rejected on the ground that proper explanation for the delay has not been explained. Against the aforesaid order revision was filed being Revision No. 30 of 2010, which has also been rejected vide order dated 05.8.2010, hence this writ petition.

(2.) THE suit was filed by plaintiff-respondent for permanent injunction against defendant-petitioner being Suit No. 446 of 2004. The said injunction has been sought? by the respondent-plaintiff on the ground that the petitioner is interfering in the possession of Plot No. 133. On the other hand petitioner claims to be in possession over the said plot by virtue of sale-deed executed by the respondent-plaintiff dated 17.1.1997. The said sale-deed is said to be registered sale-deed.

(3.) IT is not disputed that the aforesaid decree? is an ex-parte decree against which petitioner has filed application for recall and also condonation of delay in filing the aforesaid? recall application on the ground that he had no knowledge of the proceeding. He claims to have obtained knowledge only on 17.5.2008. However, it is not disputed that for the execution of the aforesaid decree before Execution Court, the petitioner himself had filed an application? as far back as on 05.3.2008 for adjournment of the Execution Case, therefore, obviously petitioner had full knowledge of proceeding much prior to 17.5.2008 and therefore, claim of the petitioner cannot be accepted that he came to know of the ex-parte decree only on 17.5.2008. In view of the aforesaid, I am not inclined to interfere with the order impugned. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. It is open for the petitioner to pursue any remedy that may available to him under? the Civil Procedure Code or any other law.