PRAKASH Vs. RAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In wake of onslaught of COVID-19, abundant caution is being taken while hearing the matters in Court.

(2.) The petitioners have preferred this writ petition claiming the following relief:- "It is, therefore, most humbly and respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and the order impugned dated 10.01.2020 (Annex.9) passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.3, Udaipur in Civil Case No.74/2018 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the application filed by the present petitioners under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC read with Section 151 CPC may kindly be allowed."

(3.) The respondent no.1 Raj Kumar Chanchawat preferred a suit for specific performance of the contract against the defendants Ram Niranjan (respondent no.5) and others. The said suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 17.12.2016 in favour of respondent no.1 - Raj Kumar Chanchawat and in pursuance of the decree dated 17.12.2016, sale deed was executed in favour of the Raj Kumar Chanchawat on 13.09.2017. Raj Kumar respondent No.1 in lieu sold the property to the present petitioners vide registered sale deed dated 25.10.2017 which was registered on 26.10.2017. The contesting respondents i.e. respondents no.5 and 6, particularly respondent No.5, who was the judgment-debtor in the decree dated 17.12.2016 and the present respondent No.6 Anirudh Sharma who stepped into the shoes of the judgment-debtor, moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. on 03.05.2018 to set aside the ex-parte decree dated 17.12.2016. The present respondent no.1 Raj Kumar, who stepped into the shoes of the decree holder, moved an application under Order 1 Rule 10(2) C.P.C. for deletion of the name of Aniruddh Sharma but the said application was dismissed vide order dated 29.10.2018 and Aniruddh Sharma was maintained as a party. The petitioners thereafter moved another application under Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. that since they have stepped into the shoes of Raj Kumar, decree holder, therefore, they may be impleaded as party to contest the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. The learned Court below dismissed the said application on the ground that the limited proposition of Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. only requires the parties to prove that the notices were not properly served in the spirit of Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. and no merit of the matter is involved, therefore, it was not necessary for the petitioners to be arrayed as party.