SURENDER AND ORS. Vs. SANT RAM AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The challenge in the present revision petition is to the impugned order dated 14.10.2015, whereby the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code for setting-aside of the exparte judgment and decree dated 18.8.2009 and ex-parte order dated 7.11.2005, has been allowed.

(2.) Mr.C.B.Goel, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiffs submits that the suit was filed on 27.8.2005 challenging the sale deed dated 15.4.2005, alleged to have been executed in favour of the respondent-defendant, as there was no exchange of sale consideration.

(3.) The respondent-defendant was served through munadi, but he did not appear and ultimately was proceeded ex-parte on 7.11.2005 and thereafter the ex-parte judgment and decree came to be passed. In the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed on 18.1.2010, it was stated that the respondent-defendant acquired the knowledge of the ex-parte judgment and decree only on 29.12.2009 on the premise that he had surrendered to the police in the month of October, 2006 and from 29.5.2005, i.e., the alleged date of murder of Jogi Ram , he did not remain in his village or at his home or nearby village and, therefore, FIR No.121 dated 29.5.2005 was registered and he was acquitted on 1.12.2006 in the said case. The knowledge of the ex-parte judgment and decree was acquired by him when he visited the office of the Patwari in connection with some work, where the Halqa Patwari disclosed the factum of the aforementioned ex-parte judgment and decree. He further submits that since Sant Ram did not have any title in the property, which has allegedly been sold by him on 31.5.2007 on the basis of the sale deed dated 15.4.2005, therefore, no right or title accrued to him to contest the suit. He further submits that the trial Court has committed illegality and perversity in not noticing the fact that once he was acquitted on 1.12.2006 in the criminal case, no explanation, much less reasons have been assigned in not filing the application for a period of four years. The delay of four years itself is a sufficient ground for non-suiting the respondent-defendant.