SUDARSHAN PRASAD Vs. SMT. RAJPUTI DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned counsel for the respondent.

(2.) In this case, the petitioner has challenged the order dtd. 16/12/2019 passed by the learned Munsif, Hilsa in Execution Case No.01 of 2018, by which the objection petition dtd. 6/4/2019 filed by the petitioner opposing the maintainability of the said execution case, has been dismissed.

(3.) It is the case of the petitioner that the respondent herein filed a suit for specific performance of contract in the Court of learned Munsif, Hilsa on 18/2/1994 against one Sheo Nandan Matho (defendant no.1 therein) which was registered as Title Suit No.14 of 1994. In the said suit, the present petitioner was also made as defendant No.2 as he was the subsequent purchaser. In the aforesaid suit, it was alleged that the defendant no.1 had executed a sale deed on 20/1/1993 in favour of the respondent but later failed to appear before the registering authority for admission of execution of the said sale deed. Therefore, the respondent-plaintiff had made a prayer in the suit to direct the defendant no.1 to appear before the registering authority and to admit the execution of sale deed or in alternative pass a decree for specific performance of contract. According to the petitioner, the respondent-plaintiff got the summons served upon the defendants fraudulently by suppressing the service of summons. As a result of which, the said suit was decreed ex parte on 9/1/1998 against the defendants. The defendant no.1 had challenged the ex parte decree by filing a petition under Order IX Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code, which was registered as Miscellaneous Case No.13 of 1998 but the same was dismissed vide order dtd. 27/8/1999. The defendants thereafter challenged the said order in Miscellaneous Appeal No.23 of 1999 before the learned District Judge, which also came to be dismissed. Against the aforesaid order, the defendants then preferred Civil Revision Nos.2189 of 2000 and 2196 of 2000 before this Court, which were also dismissed vide a common order dtd. 31/8/2006. Thereafter, Sheo Nandan Mahto, original defendant no.1, passed away in the year 2007 leaving behind his widow Shyampati Devi, who also died in the year 2015.