PRABHAWATI Vs. VTH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, BARABANKI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD Mr.J.C.Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr.Adnan Ahmad, learned counsel for opposite party No.3.

(2.) THE petitioners have challenged the order dated 19th of July, 1995, passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division) in Regular Suit No.431 of 1992 as also the order dated 13th of May, 2009, passed by the Additional District Judge, Barabanki in appeal No.49 of 2008, whereby the petitioners' application moved under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the exparte decree dated 19.7.1995 has been rejected.

(3.) THE objection against the application for restoration of the suit is on record, upon peursal of which, I find that it is admitted by the opposite parties that the petitioners obtained his signature, but the allegation is that they obtained signature on the blank paper fraudulently and thereupon they have entered the compromise. Be that as it may, it is a disputed question of fact, which can be decided by the trial court itself. The trial court has rejected the petitioners' application on the ground that if any such agreement was there, that must have been brought on record instead of seeking time for filing written statement, but the petitioners failed to bring it on record, therefore, it is obvious that there was no any agreement and only this story has been created just to get the delay condoned.