BHOLARAM Vs. NARSA RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY way of the instant writ petition, the petitioner has beseeched to quash and set-aside the order dated 3.2.2006 and 20.10.2004 passed by District Judge, Sikar and Civil Judge (Sr. Division) Neem Ka Thana respectively.

(2.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and carefully perused the relevant material on record including the impugned orders, it is noticed that the respondents filed a suit for recovery of agriculture debt against the defendant-petitioner before the learned trial court. The learned trial court, having analyzed the matter in detail, decreed the suit ex-parte. The defendant-petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting-aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, which came to be dismissed by the learned trial court vide order dated 20.10.2004. Aggrieved with the order dated 20.10.2004, the defendant-petitioner preferred a revision before the District Judge, Sikar. The learned revisional court, vide its order dated 3.2.2006, dismissed the revision of the defendant-petitioner and affirmed the order of the trial court. Thus, there has been a concurrent finding of fact of both the courts below.

(3.) IN this case, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the High Court had no jurisdiction after reversing the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below and remand the case to the Additional Judicial Commissioner.