RAMOTAR Vs. ADDL DISTT JUDGE FAST TRACK SIKAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS writ petition is directed against the order dated 28. 9. 2004 passed by the Addl. District Judge (Fast Track), Sikar. By the aforesaid impugned order the application moved on behalf of the defendant petitioners under Section 10 CPC was rejected.

(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioners is that the petitioners are defendant in suit No. 90/2004 whereas respondent Nos. 2, 3 and 4 are plaintiff. THE ex-parte decree was passed on 13. 9. 85 to the effect that the plaintiffs are in continuous possession over the disputed property and he has acquired right on the basis of adverse possession and to protect possession, a decree for permanent injunction was also granted. THE plaintiff respondents have moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte decree. He also simultaneously preferred a first regular appeal before the appellate court. Both the proceedings i. e. , application for setting aside the ex-parte decree and the appeal are pending before the Distt. Judge, Sikar.

(3.) HE placed reliance on the judgment of A. C. Ananthaswamy & Ors. vs. Boraiah (d) by Lrs.) (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that to prove fraud, it must be proved that representation made was false to the knowledge of the party making such representation or that the party could have no reasonable belief that it was true.