AHMADI KHATOON Vs. MOHAMMAD TASLIM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Both the cases arise out of the order dated 23/12/2003 passed in Misc. Case Nos. 11/2003 and 12/2003, whereby the miscellaneous cases were dismissed on the ground that Title Suit No. 116/89 was decreed on 9/5/2003 on contest and, as such, the Court has no jurisdiction to set aside such decree. If the petitioners were aggrieved by the judgment, and decree passed in Title Suit No. 116/89 they could have filed an appeal against the said judgment and decree.

(2.) The relevant facts of the case are that Title Suit No. 116/89 was filed by the plaintiffs-opposite party for partition of their share in the joint family property, in which the mother of the petitioners was defendant No. 1, who died during pendency of the suit and, as such, the petitioners were substituted. The petitioners in C.R. No. 256/2004 appeared and also participated in the suit till framing of the issues and also filed an application for appointment of Pleader Commissioner, which was rejected. Thereafter, they left pairvi in the case. The petitioners in C.R. No. 127/2004 did not appear in the suit. The Court in such a situation fixed date for ex parte hearing and decreed the suit on 9/5/2003. The petitioners of C.R No. 127/2004 filed Misc. Case No. 12/2003 and the petitioners in C.R No. 256/2004 filed Misc. Case No. 11/2003 for setting aside the ex parte decree. The said miscellaneous cases have been dismissed by order dated 23/12/2003, as indicated above, on the ground that they are not-maintainable. Thus, the petitioners have filed the civil revision petitions for setting aside the order passed in the miscellaneous cases.

(3.) Since both the revisions arise out of same order notice was issued in C.R. No. 127/2004. Notices were served on the opposite party, Mr. Pushkar Narain Shahi appears on behalf of the plaintiff-opposite party No. 1 in both the cases and the rest did not appear in spite of the service of the notice.