GOPAL PATEL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition with the following prayer :-

(2.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that a suit for permanent injunction was filed regarding a plot measuring 2500 sq. fts, situated at Adarsh Nagar Road, Krishnapuri, Sirohi. The petitioner submitted an application for issuing the patta before Municipal Council but even after giving the patta, the respondents initiated the proceedings to dispossess the petitioner, upon which the petitioner approached the learned court below and filed the suit No.19/2013. During the course of the proceedings, the respondent No. 2 and 3 agreed to issue patta in favour of the petitioner in the back of respondent no.1 and such suit was accordingly allowed by way of compromise on 21.02.2015. On the basis of the compromise, the plot of the petitioner was regularized and pattas were issued on 13.01.2015 by the respondents No. 2 and 3 while depositing the charges of Rs.1,42,253/- through appropriate receipt alongwith one time lease amount for 10 years.

(3.) The petitioner preferred the instant suit on account of such proceedings before the Tehsildar, whereby the notices were issued and the respondent no.1, 2 and 3 all appeared through their respective advocates. The matter was posted for written statement on 20.05.2016, however, the learned counsel for the respondents no.1 did not appear on that date and therefore, ex- parte proceedings were initiated against the respondent No.1, while the proceedings were continuing issues were framed and matter was posted for evidence of the petitioner on 06.12.2016. After recording the evidence of the petitioner and after a delay of 9 months on 20.02.2017, an application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the CPC was moved by which the ex-party proceedings were sought to be recalled. The matter was posted on 25.03.2017 when the application for Order 9 Rule 7 CPC was not pressed by the officers of the Municipal Council on account of the fact that a separate power has been given to proceed on behalf of the respondent No.1 and he was no longer responsible for conducting the case on behalf of the respondent no.1.