UPENDRA PRASAD GUPTA Vs. SATENDRA KUMAR GUPTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Mr. Baban Prasad, learned counsel appearing for opposite party nos. 1 and 2.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the order dtd. 8/7/2024 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Sr. Division)-III, Palamau in Civil Misc. Case No.10 of 2024, whereby, the restoration petition dtd. 20/2/2024 filed by the plaintiffs/opposite parties under Order IX Rule 4 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC for restoration of Original Suit No.68 of 2017 has been allowed without providing any opportunity to the petitioner.

(3.) Mr. Anand Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the plaintiffs/opposite parties instituted a suit being Original Suit No.68 of 2017 for declaration that three sale deeds do not contain true expression of conscious mind of Late Ayodhya Prasad and the said sale deeds were obtained by playing fraud and the same did not convey right, title, interest and possession upon the defendants, which are liable to be cancelled under Sec. 31 of Specific Relief Act and also for permanent injunction. He further submits that after receiving summons, the petitioner/defendant has appeared in the said suit and filed written statement and contested the suit on several grounds. He also submits that after framing issues, the suit was fixed for evidence, however, despite several adjournments the plaintiffs/ opposite parties did not take any step and ultimately vide order dtd. 20/3/2023, the said suit was dismissed under Order IX Rule 3 read with Order XVII Rule 2 of the CPC. He then submits that on 20/2/2024, the plaintiffs/opposite parties filed a restoration petition under Order IX Rule 4 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC for restoration of the said suit, which was registered as Civil Misc. Case No.10 of 2024 and vide order dtd. 8/7/2024, the learned Court has been pleased to restore the said original suit to its original file. He submits that this exercise has been done by the learned Court without noticing the defendant and even copy of the restoration petition was not served upon him. He submits that in view of that, the learned Court has wrongly passed the said order and, as such, the impugned order may kindly be set-aside.