Dismissed

Gita Devi Gunja Devi And Anr. v. Gita Devi And Ors.

Jharkhand HC5 Sept 2019WPC/770/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand dismissed a writ petition challenging a civil court order that set aside an ex parte decree due to lack of proper service, as there was no merit to differ with the lower court's conclusion. The court directed the trial court to conclude the suit proceedings at the earliest.

What did the court decide?

Writ application not entertained; directed trial court to conclude proceedings of Title Suit No. 65 of 2000 at the earliest.

Gita Devi Gunja Devi And Anr. Vs Gita… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Jharkhand HC (2019)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

W.P.(C) No. 770 of 2012

¶3

Gita Devi @ Gunja Devi

¶4

Sandip Prajapati .... Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Gita Devi

¶7

SAIL, Bokaro Steel Plant Through its Managing Director, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro

¶8

Deputy General Manager, Electric Department Centring Plant, Managing Director, Bokaro Steel City, Bokaro

¶9

… Respondents

¶10

¶11

CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY

¶12

--For the Petitioners : None For the SAIL : Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, Advocate ---

¶13

Order No. 04 Dated 5^th September, 2019

¶14

None appears on behalf of the petitioners. However, Mr. Abhay Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing for the proforma respondents is present.

¶15

The petitioner in this writ application has prayed for quashing of the order dated 26.09.2011 passed by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bokaro in Miscellaneous Case No. 09/07 by which the order dated 24.04.2004 passed in Title Suit No. 65 of 2000 has been set aside.

¶16

The factual aspect of the case reveals that the petitioners being the plaintiffs had filed Title Suit No. 65 of 2000 for a decree of declaration that the plaintiff No. 1 is legally married wife of Bechan Lal and the petitioner No. 2 is the son of Bechan Lal. In the suit the defendants were summoned and the defendants No. 3 and 4 who are the proforma respondents in the present application had appeared. The suit was disposed of vide judgment dated 24.04.2004 against the defendants No. 1, 3 and 4 and ex parte against the defendant No. 2. The defendant No. 2 who is the respondent herein had filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree. The delay of three years’ in filing such application was condoned vide order 14.12.2007 and ultimately vide order dated 26.09.2011 the ex parte decree dated 24.04.2004 was set aside subject to payment of cost of Rs. 5,000/-. The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 26.09.2011 by which the ex parte decree was set aside.

¶17

¶18

It appears from a perusal of the impugned order dated 26.09.2011 that the defendant No. 2/ respondent herein was never served with a notice and in fact the summons were returned back with an endorsement that the summons was stuck on the door of the defendant No. 2 due to her non-presence. Therefore the learned court below had come to a conclusion that in absence of proper service of notice upon the defendant No. 2, the trial proceeded and an ex parte order was passed against the defendant No. 2 and on such premise by the impugned order dated 26.09.2011, the judgment/ order dated 24.04.2004 which was passed in Title Suit No. 65 of 2000 was set aside.

¶19

There being no reasons to differ with the impugned order dated 26.09.2011, I am not inclined to entertain this writ application, which is accordingly disposed of with a direction the learned trial court to conclude the proceedings of Title Suit No. 65 of 2000 at the earliest.

¶20

(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)

¶21

Gita Devi Gunja Devi And Anr. v. Gita Devi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gita Devi Gunja Devi And Anr. v. Gita Devi And Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Piyush Sharma Vs Transport

Branch Manager Bazar Branch State Bank of India Jamtara through Sri Abdul Razaque Ali Vs Deb Kumar Shaw

Div.Manager,National Insurance Vs Smt.Munni Devi And Anr.

Manu Enterprises And Anr. Vs Coal India Limited And Ors.

Chatu Mahto And Ors. Vs State of Jharkhand And Ors.

Ramdhani Bind Vs Samdaiya Kunwar