ISHWARLAL Vs. CENTRAL BANK OF INDIA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal, the appellants are challenging the order dated 17.5.2018 passed by first Additional District Judge Mandsaur in M.A. No.7/2013 whereby the lower court has dismissed the applications filed by the appellants under Order 9 Rule 9 r/w Section 151 of the CPC and under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

(2.) The respondent No.1 has filed a recovery suit against the respondent Nos.2 to 4, which was registered as Civil Suit No.46-B/94 before the Second Additional District Judge, Mandsaur and the said suit was decreed vide judgment dated 17.5.1996. Thereafter the decree holder i.e. the respondent No.1 filed an execution petition against the respondent Nos.2 to In the execution proceedings land of survey No.14/1 total area of 0.198 Hectare and survey No.13 area 0.042 hectare total are 0.240 hectare situated at village Kityani, Tehshsil and District-Mandsaur was attached. Since the present appellant has already purchased the said land by registered sale deed dated 27.4.1991 from one Smt. Kalpanadevi Baser and has also got their name mutated in the said land records.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the court below has committed error in dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act as well as the application under Order 9 Rule 9 of the CPC filed by the appellants. He submits that there were sufficient grounds with the appellants for condoning the delay in filing this application. He submits that the counsel has not informed the appellants regarding the dismissal of the objection in default. In such circumstances, he prays that the impugned order be set aside.