Dismissed

Hardeep Singh v. Amol Singh and Others

Chhattisgarh HC1 Dec 2012CR/49/2004

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a civil revision under Section 115 CPC, the High Court dismissed the plea to set aside an ex-parte decree. The court held that the Lower Appellate Court and Trial Court were correct in finding no sufficient cause under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, as the applicant had appeared earlier and failed to contest adequately despite opportunity.

What did the court decide?

Civil revision dismissed; liberty granted to file a regular appeal against the original judgment and decree.

Hardeep Singh Vs Amol Singh and Others — Property and Title | Chhattisgarh HC (2012)

¶1

^<?-iC^^~^t^S^iTL^;^"t;TL-^^^^A-L^^'y^^;^::,-i '•&'^; ':^'..L;'^^-^'.J^.'l:

¶2

il^Sll!aFHEI'W^H3;©H' leQUiWCKR ; JTiDie&'FU'KE- , AT~'?BII.iaS;KW tGS^ CJ.vJ.I'Ke-vj.sion N6.^'' 't^9,~ 0£'^{:200^||"'"'i^^aKSIft} ( Memoranduin of Civii Bevisio.n U/s lt5 df e.P.G. )

¶3

8 ' Hardeep S-tngh aged about 41 yearaiS^lgj :,.3|| Late pri t am s-i-rigfa Rajpal, re s .i-deEi^^ :;'^| 6f Main Road K.otba, Tehsil and '••• Dist.cictKorba(CG).

¶4

Versus

¶5

NON-APPLICANTS $ <<L«- Amol singh aged abput 25
^
S/oPuniraraKanwar|»'
i./kiii'1"'^^*' Bedram @ Betu a ge<agedged about 29
years S/o Pttairam'.
3. 3'awahar. LaJ. & Bahsran aged
/^^•'^y <
A' 27 yeaEs S/o Pi.iniram Kanwar,
.<<^-; All residenfe of Village Jarve
. <^^^ Tehsil and Dlstriet Korba
<?'-^..-''
<>/€.! Tl-ie State o£Cbha'tt.i.sgarh,Cbha'tt.i.sgarh,
througla tbe Collector Korba,
DlstriGt Korba(CG).
MEMORANIHJM OF CIVIL REVISION ONDBR SECTION: 11S;©!E'C..P.Gt

¶6

Amol singh aged abput 25 years .;ls S/oPuniraraKanwar|»' Bedram @ Betu a ge<agedged about 29 years S/o Pttairam'.

¶7

3'awahar. LaJ. & Bahsran aged aboutiii|g 'IB 27 yeaEs S/o Pi.iniram Kanwar, r'li^ All residenfe of Village Jarve ;i|;':g! Tehsil and Dlstriet Korba (CG). 'IB ;][1 . fc<

¶8

Tl-ie State o£Cbha'tt.i.sgarh,Cbha'tt.i.sgarh, througla tbe Collector Korba, DlstriGt Korba(CG).

^i^S

hV,

KW\m

^
s>
''fe !i!.i. HSi-vfs-^y i"*>>iy^-4;l ";s<v

¶13

HIGIICQURT OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR

¶14

S.B.: HON-BLEMR. JUSTICE ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE

¶15

Civil Revision No.49 oL2004

APPLICANT

Hardeep Singh

Versus

NON-APPLICANTS

Amol Singh and others

¶21

CIVIL REVISION UNDER SECTION 115 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE

¶22

;^!^ii^:

¶23

Appearance :

¶24

Mr. Sunil Sahu, Counsel for the applicant. Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Agarwal, Panel Lawyer for the

State.

ORAL ORDER

(01.12.2012)

Heard.

(2) This is a civil revision filed by the defendant under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the order dated 28.01.2004, passed by the Additional District Judge, Korba, District Korba (C.G.), in MCA No. 13/2003 which in turn arises out of the order dated 20.11.2003 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Korba in M.J.C. No. 14/2003.

¶30

(3) By impugned order the First Appellate Court dismissgd the appeal filed by the applicant herein (defendant) and confirmed the order dated 20.11.2003 passed by Civil Judge Class-1, Surajpur in M.J.C. No. 14/2003.

¶31

:ll.?""^Sv\ w^ 1 :^.y

¶32

(4) So the question which arises for consideration in this revision is whether the Lower Appellate Court was justified in dismissing the appeal filed by the applicant herein (defendant)?

¶33

(5) Having heard the leamed counsel for the applicant and on perusal of the record of the case, I am inclined to dismiss the revision, as in my view, the leamed First Appellate Judge was right in dismissing the applicant's appeal and in tum was justified in upholding the order of the trial Court?

¶34

tl»S:;

¶35

(6) The proceedings arise out ofOrder 9 Rule 13 ofC. P. Code. Two Courts have been pleased to reject the application ruade by the applicant herein (defendant) under Order 9 Rule 13 ibid on the following facts and findings.

¶36

3B:a"

¶37

(7) The applicant, who is son df deceased- defendantPreetam Singh in original Civil Suit No. 111A/91 filed by the respondents herein for declaration and possession in relation to suit land in the Court of-Civil Judge Class-II, Korba, suffered exparte decree on 04.09.1997. He then filed an application for setting aside of the said exparte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of C. P. Code. This application was dismissed by the trial Court on contest holding inter alia that the application does not make out any sufficient ground for setting aside of the ex-parte decree and the one pleaded by the defendant in his application does not constitute any sufficient eause within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 13 ibid. An appeal liled by the applicant before the First Additional District Judge was also disraissed by the impugned order which resulted in affirming of the order passed by the trial Court, which has now given rise to ffling of this revision by the defendant.

¶38

(8) In my opinion, two Courts below were right in dismissing the application made by the applicant under Order 9 Rule 13 ibid holding therein that it did not make out any sufficient ground for setting aside of the ex-parte decree passed by the trial Court on 04.09.1997. This finding that it does notmake out a sufficient ground is a question of fact and being concurrent in nature, is binding on the revisional Court. It does not involve any ground which may entitle this Court to interfere in such findings in revisionaljurisdiciton.

¶39

(9) Even otherwise, it is clear that defendant was not entitled to claim any benefit of Order 9 Rule 13 for gettin^ the exparte decree set aside for the reason that the defendant/Preetam Singh had the knowledge of suit proceeding^{andbeforeexparte} proceeding^{hehadappeared} in the trial Court.

¶40

(10) The appellate Court in detail has mentioned all these facts in the iinpugned order and then came to a conclusion that it does not make out any sufficient cause in defendant's favour within the meaning of Order 9 Rule 13 ibid. I concur with such finding. The applicant's counsel in this revision was not able to point out to me any error.

¶41

(11) In my opinion, therefore, this is not a case where the defendant was not noticed or was not served with the surnrnons or that she was not given the adequate opportunity to contest the suit due to non-service of notice or giving of short notice or not granting time, but here is a case where despite "-giving adequate opportunity, the defendant failed to avail the same. That apart, no sufficient cause was shown for absence of defendant on the date when he/she was placed^{ex-parteandfurthernosatisfactory}

¶42

•t..

¶43

cause was pleaded as to why he waited to approach the Court in making the application for setting aside of the exparte decree.

¶44

(12) In the light of these findings and with this factual back ground, I do not find any ground to reverse the factual findings of the two Courts.

¶45

(13) As a consequence of foregoing discussion, the civil revision is found to be totally de.void of any merit. It fails and is accordingly dismissed. However, I grant liberty to the applicant/defendant to file a regular appeal against the original judgment and decree dated 04.09.1997 passed in CivilSuitNo. 111A/91.

¶46

(14) No cost(s). Sd/Abhay Manohai Sapre Judge

¶47

Shyna

¶48

•^-<Sa^S..^_

Hardeep Singh v. Amol Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Hardeep Singh v. Amol Singh and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Panchu Ram Vs Abdul Murad and Others

Ganeshi Bai Vs Abdul Murad and Others

Shanti Bai Vs Abdul Murad @ Tashim and Ors.

M/S Shyamlal Agrawal Vs South Eastarn Coal Fileds Ltd.

Secretary India Chruch Council and Ano Vs Saria Claudious and Ors.

Dharmpal and Anr. Vs Shivkumar and Ors.