JAGSAIN AND ORS. Vs. DHARAMVIR AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Original Suit No. 631/2007 (Jagsain and others Vs. Dharamvir) was filed for relief of permanent injunction. The case of plaintiffs (present appellants) was that ownership of disputed property belonged to defendant, from whom plaintiffs had purchased disputed house for consideration 17 years ago by oral transaction, and came in its possession. But later on defendant no. 1 had executed registered sale-deed of said property in favour of defendants no. 2 and 3, who are trying to interfere in possession of plaintiffs. Therefore plaintiffs had filed suit for permanent injunction.

(2.) After service of summons, defendants had not appeared, therefore case proceeded ex-parte against them. Then after accepting the evidence adduced by plaintiffs and affording them the opportunity of hearing, the trial court had dismissed the original suit on merits by its judgment dated 24.07.2014. Aggrieved by it, plaintiffs had preferred civil appeal no. 24/2014, Jagsain & others Vs. Dharamvir & others. This appeal was heard and dismissed on merit by judgment dated 29.07.2015 of District Judge, Gautam Budh Nagar. Aggrieved by the judgments of two courts below, present second appeal has been preferred by the plaintiffs of the original suit.

(3.) Learned counsel for the plaintiff-appellants contended that since the defendants-respondents had not appeared in original suit, therefore in the light of provisions of Order-VIII, Rule-5(2) CPC, the suit should have been decreed. This contention is legally unacceptable. The said provisions reads as under :