Disposed¶31

Mandal Singh v. Chanda Bai

Chhattisgarh HC12 Sept 2024WP227/805/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

WP227 No. 805 of 2024, High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur, order dated 13/09/2024 by Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari; Article 227 writ; ex-parte decree dated 10.05.2024 in Civil Suit No.50A/2021 stayed under Section 151 and Order 39 Rule 3 CPC pending Order 9 Rule 13 CPC application filed 05.08.2024; stay of execution of ex-parte decree; petitioners Mandal Singh and others vs Chanda Bai and others (plaintiffs) and State of Chhattisgarh; advocates Achyut Tiwari and Rajeev Bharat (GA); NAFR (not for reporting).

What did the court decide?

Stay of the effect and operation of the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 10.05.2024 passed by the 2nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pendraroad in Civil Suit No.50A/2021, till adjudication of the petitioners' application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC; petition disposed of with these observations/directions.

Mandal Singh Vs Chanda Bai — Writ and Judicial Review | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶31

Issue for consideration

Whether the effect and operation of the ex-parte decree dated 10.05.2024 in Civil Suit No.50A/2021 should be stayed till adjudication of the petitioners' pending application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the ex-parte decree.

¶24

Court's answer

Since the petitioners' application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 10.05.2024 (Civil Suit No.50A/2021) was pending consideration, the Court stayed the effect and operation of that ex-parte judgment and decree till adjudication of the said application.

¶30

Ratio / Principle

The Court reasoned that if the ex-parte decree is executed while the setting-aside application is pending, it would lead to complexity.

¶29

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Chhattisgarh High Court (Bilaspur), WP227 No. 805 of 2024, decided 13.09.2024 (Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari). Defendants against whom an ex-parte judgment and decree dated 10.05.2024 was passed in Civil Suit No.50A/2021 (declaration of title and possession suit) filed a writ petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India after the 2nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pendraroad dismissed (by orders dated 13.08.2024 and 22.08.2024) their applications under Section 151 of the CPC and Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC seeking stay of the ex-parte decree pending their Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC application (filed 05.08.2024) to set aside the decree. Held: as the setting-aside application was pending, execution of the ex-parte decree would lead to complexity; accordingly, the effect and operation of the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 10.05.2024 was stayed till adjudication of the Order 9 Rule 13 application, and the petition stood disposed of.

1 / 3

2024:CGHC:35927

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WP227 No. 805 of 2024

¶6

1. Mandal Singh S/o Mangal Singh Gond, Aged About 72 Years(Defendant No.1)

¶7

2. Gopal Singh S/o Mandal Singh Gond, Aged About 50 Years (Defendant No.2)

¶8

3. Shivpal Singh S/o Mandal Singh Gond, Aged About 48 Years (Defendant No.3)

¶9

4. Patilal Singh S/o Mandal Singh Gond, Aged About 46 Years (Defendant No.4)

¶10

All are R/o Village- Padkhuri, Tehsil- Pendraroad, District- G.P.M. (C.G.)

¶11

... Petitioners

¶12

versus

¶13

1. Chanda Bai D/o Late Sukhdin Gond, W/o Balraj Gond, Aged About 48 Years R/o Village- Padkhuri, Tehsil- Pendraroad, District- G.P.M. (C.G.) (Plaintiff)

¶14

2. Radha Bai D/o Late Sukhdin Gond, W/o Laluwa Singh Gond, Aged About 46 Years R/o Village Diyadand, Tehsil Pendraroad, District G.P.M. (C.G.) (Plaintiff)

¶15

2 / 3

¶16

3. Hiramati D/o Late Sukhdin Gond, W/o Ratansingh Gond, Aged About 42 Years R/o Village-Harradih, Tehsil-Pendraroad, District- G.P.M. (C.G.) (Plaintiff)

¶17

4. Kunvar Singh S/o Late Sukhdin Gond, Aged About 38 Years Lunatic Through The Legal Guardian Mother Chandabai D/o Sukhdin Gond, R/o Village-Padkhuri, Tehsil-Pendraroad, District-G.P.M. (C.G.) (Plaintiff)

¶18

5. Sitabai D/o Late Sukhdin, Aged About 44 Years R/o Village-Pandri, P.S. And Tehsil And District- Anuppur (M.P.) (Defendant No.5)

¶19

6. State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Collector, District-Gaurela-PendraMarwahi (C.G.) (Defendant No.6)

¶20

... Respondents

¶21

For Petitioners : Mr. Achyut Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Rajeev Bharat, GA.

¶22

Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Order On Board

¶23

13/09/2024

¶24

1. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing the legality and validity of the orders dated 13.08.2024 and 22.08.2024 respectively passed by the 2^nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Civil Suit No.50A/2021, whereby, an application filed under Section 151 of the CPC as also an application filed under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC for staying the effect and operation of the impugned ex-parte decree till adjudication of the pending application filed by the petitioners herein under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC, were dismissed.

¶25

2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondents/plaintiffs have filed a Civil Suit for declaration of title and possession of the subject land in favour of the plaintiffs and respondent No.5 (Sitabai) and, an ex-parte decree was passed in

¶26

3 / 3

¶27

the suit vide impugned judgment dated 10.05.2024, on the ground that the petitioners have refused to accept the registered notice. Thereafter, on 05.08.2024, the petitioners filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC to set-aside the ex-parte decree and in the said proceeding, an application has been filed under Section 151 of the CPC and further an application has also been filed under Order 39 Rule 3 of the CPC for staying the effect and operation of the impugned ex-parte decree till adjudication of the pending application filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC. However, by the impugned orders, both the applications were dismissed. Hence this petition.

¶28

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and also perused the documents annexed with the petition carefully.

¶29

4. Admittedly, on 10.05.2024, an ex-parte judgment and decree has been passed against the petitioners. Thereafter, on 05.08.2024, an application has been filed for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree, which is pending consideration before the 2 nd Civil Judge, Senior Division, Pendraroad, District Bilaspur (C.G.). It is quite evident that if the ex-parte decree is executed, it would lead to complexity.

¶30

5. Considering all such aspects, this Court deems it appropriate to stay the effect and operation of the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 10.05.2024 passed by the 2 nd Civil Judge, Senior Division Pendraroad in Civil Suit No.50A/2021 till adjudication of the application filed by the petitioners herein under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC. Ordered accordingly.

¶31

6. With the aforesaid observations/directions, this Petition stands disposed of.

¶32

Sd/-

¶33

(Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge

¶34

Priyanka

Mandal Singh v. Chanda Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mandal Singh v. Chanda Bai

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nitin Agrawal Vs Ajay Kumar Jaiswal

Lajrus Ekka Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Shri Ramchandra Swami @ Bhaghirathi Mandir Trust, Vs Atmaram Khatwani

Dumesh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Tirkey Vs Makariyus Lakra

Narottam Prasad Vs Rameshwar Prasad