RAM KRISHAN Vs. RISAL SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CM No. 1943-C of 2016 For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, legal heirs of respondent No. 4-Ram Pal as mentioned in the application are ordered to be brought on record, for the purpose of prosecuting the present appeal. Application stands allowed. CM No. 5974-C of 2011 For the reasons stated in the application, which is supported by an affidavit, delay of 32 days in refiling the appeal is condoned. Application is allowed. Main case The plaintiff is in the Regular Second Appeal against the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 06.06.2009, whereby the plaint was rejected on account of non-payment of the Court fees, as also the order passed by the First Appellate Court dismissing the appeal on the ground that it is barred by time.

(2.) The plaintiff-appellant had filed a suit for declaration that the Civil Court decree dated 06.05.1993 passed in Civil Suit No. 53 of 1993 is null, void and ineffective. The prayer made in the suit reads as under:-

(3.) In fact, there was an earlier suit filed by Ishwar Singh and others against Soran. The aforesaid suit was for declaration that the plaintiff is owner by way of family settlement. Soran did contest the suit and admitted the contents of the plaint. On the basis of the aforesaid written statement and the statement made in the Court, the decree was passed by the Court in terms of Order 12, Rule 6 CPC on 06.05.1993.