are not disputed by the other side, generally they have to be taken as deemed admission. The petitioners have clearly stated that the delay has occurred only due to the sudden death of one of the partners, who was following the case. That apart, the ex parte decree has been registered in the encumbrance only in the year 2017, that too after the sale of the property by the revision petitioners. When the petitioners have come to the Court with reasons, considering the nature of lis, which is to annul the document of the year 2009, this Court is of the view that reasonable opportunity ought to have been given to the parties to raise their substantial defence in the matter. Though the negligence of the parties is common, when the pleadings are normally made by the counsels, mere lack of pleadings to suit the requirements of law, will not take away the rights of the parties. Therefore, this Court is of the view that liberal approach ought to have been shown by the trial Court, particularly considering the nature of the lis involving the cancellation of the registered document pertaining to the year 2009. Hence, taking a liberal approach, this Court is inclined to set aside the impugned order. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside. The trial Court shall decide the application filed under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil
