RAMESH CHANDRA JAIN Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision application has been filed at the instance of plaintiff against the order dated 19-1-2010 passed by learned First Additional District Judge, Chhattarpur in MJC No. 41/2007 whereby application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code of defendant-respondent has been allowed thereby restoring the Civil Suit No. 70-A/1995 (Ramesh Chandra Jain vs. State of M. P.) which was decreed in ex parte on 26-9-1996. No exhaustive statements of fact are required to be narrated for the purpose of disposal of this revision since the point in dispute in this revision lie in a narrow compass. Suffice it to say that a suit for declaration and injunction in respect of certain immovable property which is the subject-matter of the suit and the description whereof is mentioned in the plaint was filed by the plaintiff-applicant in the trial Court. Despite the respondent-defendant was served and appearance was made on each and every date by the Additional Government Pleader on behalf of the State ultimately he did not appear and thus suit was decreed in ex parte on 26-9-1996.

(2.) After more than 10 years and 6 months, an application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code was filed by the defendant to set aside the ex parte decree on 17-4-2007. The only reason which has been assigned in the application is that the Collector of the District Chhattarpur was not served. Hence, it was prayed that application to set aside the ex parte decree be allowed and the ex parte judgment and decree dated 26-9-1996 be set aside and the suit be restored to its original number.

(3.) This application was vigorously opposed by the plaintiff-applicant by filing reply. The evidence was also recorded. The learned trial Court although found that sufficient reason has not been assigned by defendant-respondent in the application under Order IX, Rule 13, Civil Procedure Code but in the interest of justice the application was allowed and the ex parte judgment and decree was set aside and the suit was restored to its original number holding that the officer incharge was negligent.