STATE OF M.P. Vs. SHOBHAI SAHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision has been preferred by the petitioner/defendant/State challenging the order dtd. 25/5/2024 passed by Principal District Judge, Singrauli, Head Quarter Waidhan in MCA No.16/2024 affirming the order dtd. 5/3/2024 passed by Second Civil Judge Senior Division, District Singrauli, Head Quarter Waidhan in unregistered civil case No.13/2023, whereby trial court upon dismissal of application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, dismissed the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC vide order dtd. 5/3/2024, which has been affirmed in misc. appeal by appellate Court.

(2.) In short the facts are that the respondents 1-5/plaintiffs had instituted a suit for declaration of title and permanent injunction against the petitioner/defendant/State in respect of agriculture land bearing survey No.617 area 0.48 acre out of area 0.364 hect. and survey No.976 area 2 acre i.e. 0.809 hect. situated in Village Ganiyari, District Singrauli, on the basis of plea of ownership as well as adverse possession. Record of civil suit shows that on 14/2/2014 and 19/3/2014 the plaintiffs were directed to pay process fee for service of summons on the defendant/State and thereafter on 21/4/2014 the court observed that despite service of summons no one is present on behalf of the defendant/State and case was proceeded ex-parte against the defendant/State by fixing the case for framing of issues, however, thereafter on 8/5/2014 the case was fixed for ex-parte evidence of the plaintiffs and ultimately on 27/1/2016 arguments were heard and ex-parte judgement and decree was passed on 28/1/2016.

(3.) For setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dtd. 28/1/2016, the defendant/State moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 5/9/2023 along with an application under Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act. It is contended in the application that in the suit, the defendant was not duly served, therefore, the defendant could not appear on the date of hearing and also could not know about the ex-parte judgment and decree, which came in knowledge of the defendant when the plaintiffs filed an application before Tahsildar Singrauli for compliance of ex-parte judgment and decree. It is also contended that before the Tahsildar, the plaintiffs did not file certified copy of the ex-parte judgment and decree, therefore, their application was dismissed on 6/3/2021 and in appeal an order was passed by SDO Singrauli on 21/10/2022, then only the defendant came to know about ex-parte judgment and decree. With these allegations/contentions, prayer for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was made and ex-parte judgment and decree was prayed to be set aside.