RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner challenging the order dtd. 9/9/2024 passed by learned Additional District Judge, Barmer ('Trial Court'), whereby the learned Civil Judge has dismissed the application filed by the petitioner herein in Civil Original Suit no. 188/2017 (60/2009) under Sec. 151, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC'). The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for quashing and setting aside of the impugned order with the following prayer:

(2.) Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the petitioner had purchased khatedari land measuring 6 bigha of Khasra No. 246/89, situated at Village-Babuguleriya from respondent no. 4 through a registered sale deed dtd. 19/7/2006 (Annex.1). Thereafter, the respondents-plaintiffs filed a suit seeking the cancellation of a sale deed dtd. 19/7/2006 (Annex.1). It was contended in the plaint that the sale was illegal as it was executed in a notified area, Village Babuguleriya, where, under Sec. 3(1) of the Criminal Procedure (Amendment) Act, 1961, sale of property to outsiders require prior permission from the competent authority and thus, the respondents claimed that the sale deed was void inasmuch as the property in dispute had been sold by the respondent no. 4 to the petitioner, without the permission of the competent authority.

(3.) Subsequently, the petitioner failed to file a written statement, after the service of summons and therefore, his right of filing the written statement was closed vide order dtd. 24/11/2014 (Annex.3). Thereafter, the learned Trial Court framed issues, concluded plaintiff's evidence and fixed the matter for defendant's evidence. Subsequently, in the absence of the petitioner-defendant and his counsel, learned Trial Court initiated the proceedings ex-parte and passed a decree in favor of the respondents on 24/4/2018 (Annex.4). The petitioner then filed an application to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, which was allowed by the learned Trial Court on 15/7/2022 (Annex.5), and the suit was restored to its original. However, the petitioner was not allowed to file a written statement, which led him to file a writ petition (13255/2022), which is still pending. On 15/3/2024 (Annex.6), the petitioner filed a new application with a written statement, which was rejected by the learned Trial Court on 9/9/2024 (Annex.8). Aggrieved of the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court dtd. 9/9/2024 (Annex.8), the petitioner has preferred this writ petition.