This revision petition challenged a Trial Court order setting aside an ex-parte decree in a land acquisition suit. The High Court examined if the Trial Court's finding of sufficient cause due to regional turmoil warranted interference and dismissed the revision.
Revision petition dismissed; interim direction vacated.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH AT SRINAGAR
CR No. 13/2018
Pronounced on: 10.03.2022
Ateeqa and Ors.
…..Petitioner(s)
Through: Mr. Mohammad Ashraf Wani, Advocate V/s
State of J&K and Ors.
….. Respondent(s)
Through: None
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL, JUDGE JUDGEMENT
2
CR No. 13/2018
in their favour vide judgment dated 30.06.2016. The defendants/respondents appeared in the case, however, they did not file their written statement and their right to file the same was closed vide order dated 09.05.2011. It is further contended that the counsel for defendant no.3 filed an application for allowing defendant no.3 to file written statement. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed the objections to the application. The application was allowed subject to costs of Rs.1500/, however, defendants/respondents again did not file their written statement. The Trial Court in terms of judgment dated 30.06.2016, directed the defendants/respondents to either pay compensation after assigning the market value to the plaintiffs/petitioners with respect to land in their possession or in the alternative pay a monthly rent and previous liability after having the rent assessed by the Rent Committee with a further direction that if the defendants/respondents fail to comply with the above order, they shall have to vacate the land and hand it over back to the plaintiffs/petitioners. Accordingly, decree sheet was prepared. The judgment/decree was served upon the defendants/respondents for compliance, however, they failed to implement the same. The defendants/respondents in order to avoid the execution of judgment/decree, have filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, seeking setting aside of exparte judgment/decree dated 30th July 2016. The plaintiffs/petitioners filed detailed objections to the said application and it was justified in the objections that the application was not maintainable besides preliminary objection was raised that the application was time barred and no separate application for seeking condonation of delay had been filed. The Trial Court,in terms of impugned order dated 15.02.2018, allowed the application seeking
3
CR No. 13/2018
setting aside ex-parte judgment/decreesubject to costs of Rs. 1000/- and the suit has been relegated back to the issue stage.
4
CR No. 13/2018
knowledge qua passing of ex parte judgement, could not approach the Trial Court due to turmoil in the year 2016. It has been found and observed by the Trial Court that on 25th May 2016, none was present on behalf of parties and as such, main file was awaited upto 30th June 2016 for want of prosecution and on 30th June 2016, ex part judgement followed by decree was prepared and pronounced by this Court and that parties to the suit were unable to contest the suit in its full swing on 25th May 2016, when the file was called for hearing. It also comes to fore from perusal of impugned order that on 15th February 2016, due to unavoidable circumstances as were prevailing in Kashmir Valley, no one caused appearance. It has been rightly found by Trial Court that defendants were able to show sufficient cause for allowing their application for setting-aside ex parte judgement and decree and as a consequence thereof, the Trial Court allowed application with costs of Rs.1000/-. The impugned order is lucid and eloquent and thus, does not warrant any interference
(VINOD CHATTERJI KOUL)
JUDGE SRINAGAR
10.03.2022
“Manzoor”
Whether the order is reportable: Yes/No.
MANZOOR UL HASSAN DAR 2022.03.14 12:29
2 issues framed by the court
Whether a revision petition maintaining a Trial Court order setting aside an ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC warrants interference on the facts of the case.
Whether the defendants showed sufficient cause to set aside the ex-parte decree of a civil suit concerning land acquisition and compensation.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Ateeqa and Ors.
State of J&K and Ors.
Vinod Chatterji Koul
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
