HEERA BAI Vs. PARMENDRA KUMAR KANSORIYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In both the above writ petitions parties are common and both petitions are directed against the identical orders dated 26.4.2012 passed by the Additional District Judge, Jhansi dismissing the two similar revisions of the petitioners. Petitioners instituted a suit for cancellation of the sale deed. In the suit defendant respondents appeared and filed written statement but ultimately the suit was decreed ex parte. The defendant respondents then filed two separate applications both under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree. The said applications were allowed by the trial Court. The two revisions against the above order preferred by the petitioners have been dismissed by the impugned orders as not main tamable. Thus, these writ petitions.

(2.) I have heard Sri Arvind Srivastava and Sri M.K. Gupta, learned counsel for the parties. They have agreed for final disposal of both the revisions at the outset as the point involved is purely legal in nature as to the maintainability of the revisions and no factual dispute is involved.

(3.) Full Bench of this Court in Ram Sarup v. Gaya Prasad, 1925 AIR(All) 610 held that an order setting aside ex parte decree not being appealable is revisable, if the conditions laid down under Section 115 CPC are satisfied. It further says that proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC were a 'case' within the meaning of Section 115 CPC and any decision thereon amounts to deciding the 'case' and is not a mere interlocutory order.