SURJI MAHATAIN Vs. LEKHRAJ MAHTO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN Title Suit No. 56 of 1983, the petitioner, claiming to be the purchaser of part of the suit property from one of the defendants -co -sharers, was also impleaded as party -defendant. She did not appear in the suit wherein preliminary decree to the extent of l/3rd share in respect of the suit property was passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Consequently, petitioners vendor was held entitled to only 1/3rd share in the property.

(2.) PETITIONER filed a petition under Order IX, Rule 13 of Civil Procedure Code, which was registered as Misc. Case No. 11 of 1985. In the said case, on the basis of the materials, it was found that summons were not properly served on her and, therefore, she succeeded in proving her non -participation in the suit for no fault of her. So far as the second part, which was relevant for consideration in the said proceeding was the delay in taking step for setting aside the ex parte decree. She claimed to have got knowledge of the suit and preliminary decree on 6/ 7.3.1985. But in the said proceeding she did not examine herself as a witness to prove her contention to have got aforesaid knowledge on 6.3.1985, nor it was disclosed as to from whom she got this information and in what manner. In my opinion, her absence to prove the fact that actually she got knowledge of the suit and preliminary decree on 6/7.3.1985 was fatal and in this manner, she failed to prove this fact.

(3.) REVISION application dismissed.