RAM GOPAL Vs. MANGI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of this revision petition, the petitioners/plaintiffs (for brevity, "the plaintiffs") assail the legality and validity of the order dtd. 29/5/2015 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Chabra, District Baran (for brevity, "the learned Appellate Court") in Civil Misc. Appeal No.10/2014 whereby, while allowing the appeal, the order dtd. 23/8/2014 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division) Atru, District Baran (for brevity, "the learned trial Court") dismissing the application filed by the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/defendants (for brevity, "the defendant") under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 CPC, has been quashed and the ex-parte judgment and decree dtd. 24/5/2000 has been set aside.

(2.) The relevant facts in brief are that the suit for specific performance of the agreement filed by the plaintiffs against the defendant was decreed ex-parte by the learned trial Court vide judgment dtd. 24/5/2000. Alleging that he was never served with summons, the defendant-Late Mangi Lal @ Mangya filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dtd. 24/5/2000 which was dismissed by the learned trial Court vide order dtd. 23/8/2014. The civil misc. appeal preferred thereagainst has been allowed by the learned Appellate Court vide order dtd. 29/5/2015, impugned herein. Assailing the order, learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that findings of the learned Appellate Court are perverse inasmuch as it has failed to appreciate that Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma, learned counsel has filed Vakalatnama on 10/7/2002 on behalf of Shri Mangi Lal @ Mangya in the Execution Petition No.20/2001 filed by them for execution of the decree dtd. 24/5/2000 evidencing that the defendant was well aware of the ex-parte judgment and decree way back in the year, 2002 and no reason was furnished as to why the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 CPC was filed as late as on 30/5/2009. He, in this regard, invited attention of this Court towards the Vakalatnama dtd. 10/7/2002 filed by Shri Suresh Kumar Sharma which bears thumb impression of the defendant-Shri Mangi Lal @ Mangya as also the corresponding order sheet of the learned trial Court. He submits in absence of any explanation as to why the application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree was not moved within limitation after 10/7/2002, the learned Appellate Court erred in allowing the application filed by the defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 CPC.

(3.) He, therefore, prays that the civil revision petition be allowed, the order dtd. 29/5/2015 be quashed and set aside and the order dtd. 23/8/2014 be restored.