Dismissed¶13

Om Prakash (Pal) and Another v. Bhagwanti Devi Since Deceased and 6 Others

Allahabad HC18 Feb 2025A227/15246/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Article 227 petition by plaintiffs against condonation of delay under Section 5 Limitation Act granted to defendants for filing Order IX Rule 13 CPC application against ex parte decree; ex parte decree contained no finding on date of service of summons; delay condonation not interfered with as Rule 13 application still pending; writ petition dismissed (Allahabad High Court, Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J., 19.2.2025).

What did the court decide?

From perusal of the ex parte decree, the trial Court has not recorded any finding as to the date of service of summons/notice upon the defendants and had only recorded that the notices were served upon the defendants. ¶10

Om Prakash (Pal) and Another Vs Bhagwanti Devi… — Writ and Judicial Review | Allahabad HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶13

Issue for consideration

Whether the trial Court rightly allowed the application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed with the defendants' application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., which was filed after a lapse of 12 years from the ex parte decree. +1 more

¶8

Court's answer

The impugned order allowing the delay condonation application on the ground that the summons were not served upon the defendants needs no interference, as the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. is still pending consideration and only the delay in filing it has been condoned.

¶12

Ratio / Principle

¶10

Key takeaways

The writ petition is misconceived and is dismissed.ratio¶13

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Allahabad High Court (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal, J.), Matters Under Article 227 No. 15246 of 2024, decided 19.2.2025 - Plaintiffs' petition challenging the trial Court's order dated 2.8.2024 allowing the defendants-respondents' application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act filed along with their application under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. to set aside the ex parte decree dated 09.02.2010 in Original Suit No.305 of 2007 (suit for permanent injunction in respect of plot No.268M measuring 0.632 hec.), filed after a lapse of 12 years. Held: the ex parte decree did not record any finding as to the date of service of summons/notice upon the defendants and only recorded that the notices were served; the order dated 10.12.2009 proceeding ex parte was based on notices stated to have been served by the registry on 19.11.2008, of which no order is on record. Since the Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. application is still pending and only the delay in filing it was condoned, the impugned order needs no interference. Writ petition misconceived; dismissed.

¶1

Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:24230

¶2

Court No. - 9

¶3

Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 15246 of 2024

¶4

Petitioner :- Om Prakash (Pal) And Another Respondent :- Bhagwanti Devi Since Deceased And 6 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Krishna Mohan Asthana

¶5

Hon'ble Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.

¶6

This is plaintiffs' petition. The plaintiffs-petitioners instituted Original Suit No.305 of 2007 against the defendants-respondents claiming relief of permanent injunction in respect of plot No.268M measuring 0.632 hec. As the defendants did not appear before the trial Court, the suit was decreed ex parte on 09.02.2010.

¶7

An application under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C. along with an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act was filed by the defendants-respondents on the ground that notices were never served and the plaintiffs had got the suit decreed ex parte in collusion with process server and the trial Court, without recording any finding as to service of notice, had decreed the suit. By the order impugned dated 2.8.2024, application filed for condonation of delay under Section 5 of Limitation Act has been allowed hence this writ petition.

¶8

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. along with Section 5 application has been filed after a lapse of 12 years and there stood no occasion for allowing Section 5 application. Reliance has been placed upon decision of Apex Court in case of Union of India & Anr. vs. JahangirByramji Jeejeebhoy (D) through his L.R. AIR 2024 SC 1884 . He further contends that the trial Court had recorded findings as to service of notice upon the defendants as such the trial Court could not have condoned the delay.

¶9

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material on record.

¶10

From perusal of ex parte decree, it is clear that the trial Court has not recorded any finding as to date of service of summons/notice upon the defendants and had only recorded that the notices were served upon the defendants. The petitioners had brought on record the order dated 10.12.2009 by which the trial Court had directed to proceed in the matter ex parte on the basis

¶11

that the notices were served by registry on 19.11.2008 but no order of the date has been brought on record.

¶12

From perusal of the Section 5 application as well as application filed under Order IX, Rule 13 C.P.C., it is clear that the defendants-respondents had categorically stated in his application as to non service of notice upon the defendants. The order impugned, allowing the delay condonation application on the ground that the summons were not served upon the defendants needs no interference by this Court as the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. is still pending consideration and only the delay in filing the application under Order IX, rule 13 C.P.C. has been condoned.

¶13

The writ petiton is misconceived. Dismissed.

¶14

Order Date :- 19.2.2025 Kushal

¶15

Digitally signed by :- KUSHAL AGRAWAL High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Om Prakash (Pal) and Another v. Bhagwanti Devi Since Deceased and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Om Prakash (Pal) and Another v. Bhagwanti Devi Since Deceased and 6 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

All orders in this case

Similar cases