RAJ NARAYAN MISHRA Vs. BASUDEO YADAV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Mr. A.K. Sahani along with Mr. Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioners and Mr. Atanu Banerjee, learned counsel for the sole opposite party.

(2.) This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting-aside the order dtd. 25/11/2024 passed by the learned Munsif, Giridih in Original Suit No.130 of 2018, contained in Annexure-4, whereby, the learned Court has been pleased to dismiss the petition dated 09. 01.2024 filed by the petitioners for recalling the ex-parte order dated 23. 08.2019 and refused to accept the written statement filed by the petitioners/defendants.

(3.) Mr. A.K. Sahani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the opposite party/plaintiff instituted Original Suit No.130 of 2018 against the defendants/petitioners praying therein a decree for specific performance of the contract between the plaintiff and defendants dtd. 25/3/2003 passed in favour of the plaintiff and further prayer was made for direction to the defendants to execute the sale-deed after receiving Rs.2,000.00 remaining amount of consideration and execute the sale-deed within period fixed by the learned Court. He further submits that the said original suit has been admitted and the notice has not been served upon the defendants/petitioners and vide order dtd. 23/8/2019, ex-parte order has been passed against the defendants. He submits that thereafter the defendants/petitioners filed a petition dtd. 9/1/2024 for recalling the ex-parte order, which has been refused by the learned Court. He submits that in view of that, the learned Court has wrongly not recalled the order. He submits that only paper publication was made and, thereafter, the notice has been said to be validly served. On these grounds, he submits that the impugned order may kindly be set-aside.