LAWS(P&H)-2014-11-480

MANGAT RAM SAINI Vs. RAJESHWAR DAYAL VERMA

Decided On November 20, 2014
Mangat Ram Saini Appellant
V/S
RAJESHWAR DAYAL VERMA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the order dated 27.10.2014 (Annexure P/1) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Jhajjar whereby he had allowed the application filed by the defendant and set aside the exparte order dated 14.3.2011 and the subsequent decree dated 24.8.2011 and restored the suit to its original number.

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner vehemently submits that the provisions of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC provides that the satisfaction has to be recorded by the Court for setting aside the exparte proceedings and the said exercise was not conducted by the trial Court while allowing application.

(3.) A perusal of the paper-book would go on to show that a suit for recovery of Rs. 18,00000/- as principal amount and Rs. 11,88,000/- as interest was filed. As per the pleadings, the plaintiff/petitioner had been assured by the said defendant to enter into some agreement for purchase of land in Rajasthan and agreement dated 4.4.2007 had been entered into with three different persons. Defendant had executed three separate agreements to sell his share also in favour of the plaintiff and allegedly received a sum of Rs. 18,00000/- as part of earnest money. The sale deed was to be executed and registered by 30.7.2007. Later on a pronote was executed on 12.4.2008 in presence of two witnesses whereby the said defendant agreed to repay the amount along with interest at the rate of 24% per annum on the ground that the said person was not owner and not in possession of the land detailed in agreement. Since defendant was residing in Rajasthan, notice was sent by way of registered AD post and as per order dated 14.3.2011 he was not found at the given address and his family members refused to take registered AD. Accordingly, he had been proceeded against exparte on the presumption that service was complete. Resultantly exparte decree was passed on 24.8.2011 on the basis of the pronote in question and the petitioner/plaintiff was held entitled to recover Rs. 29,88,000/- along with costs and interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of the order.