RIYAZUL RAHEEM Vs. RAHEEM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) 11th Addl. District Judge, Jabalpur in M. J. C. No. 44/2000, Riyazul Raheem v. Raheem, on 8-3-2001 dismissed the application of the appellant under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (to be called as 'code' only) for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 19-3-99 in Civil Suit No. 41-A/98, Raheem Khan v. Riyazul Raheem and 4 Ors.

(2.) APPELLANT Riyazul Raheem had purchased house No. 641 (old No. being 561) situate upon Nazul block No. 99 plot 107 area 315 sq. feet, in Galgala Toriya, Bhartipur Tilak Ward, Jabalpur (to be called as suit house) from Wazir Khan (1), Mehmood Khan (2), Sultan Khan (3) and Jahagir Khan (4) by registered sale deed dated 8-1-98. Rahim Khan (respondent) had filed a Civil Suit No. 40-A/98 challenging the sale deed on the ground that he was in open peaceful adverse possession of the same since 1960 and thus had perfected his title by adverse possession. The civil suit was decreed by ex parte judgment dated 19-3-99. The appellant had tried to get the same ex parte decree set aside.

(3.) THE appellant in his application had claimed himself to be the owner in possession of the suit house since the date of purchase i. e. , 27-1-98. Raheem Khan (respondent) is claimed to be a tenant of previous owners/sellers to the appellant. Appellant had been insisting for vacating the house, hence a false suit was filed by the respondent. Summons or notices were not served on the appellant. False reports of refusal of service by the wife of the appellant were procured by the respondent. The process server had never visited the house of the appellant. The appellant filed a civil suit for eviction in the Court of Civil Judge wherein the respondent filed a copy of the impugned decree on 20-11-99 whereupon the appellant could come to know about the impugned ex parte decree and after seeking advice of his advocate filed the application on 6-11-99.