RANJEET RAM Vs. NIRMALA DEVI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed against the order dtd. 19/1/2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No.7, Jodhpur Metro in Civil Misc. Application No.151/2022 (NCV No.407/2022) whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC as filed by the defendant applicant has been allowed.

(2.) Vide the said order, the Court has proceeded on to set aside the ex parte decree dtd. 14/1/2022 passed against the defendant with a finding that the defendant deserves to be granted an opportunity of hearing so that the matter can be decided on its merits.

(3.) While deciding so, the Court relied upon the judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases of (i) Robin Thapa vs. Rohit Dora, AIR 2019 SC 3225; (ii) Rafiq and Ors. Vs. Munshilal and Ors., (1981) 3 SCR 509 and judgment of this Court in Ram Bahadur vs. Ramesh Goyal, 2020 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 331. The ratio as laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the above mentioned judgments is that when an appeal is dismissed for some fault on part of a lawyer, restoration should be ordered and further that a litigation should not be terminated by default, either of the plaintiff or the defendant. The cause of justice requires adjudication on merits. In the case of The Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Ors. Vs. Raghu Raj; (2008) 13 SCC 395, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under: