Dismissed

Yogendra Choudhary v. Meena Devi and Ors.

Patna HC15 Oct 2012C.R./152/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged the High Court order dismissing an application to set aside an ex parte decree. The lower court found sufficient cause due to the illness and death of the defendant father. The High Court held no jurisdictional error or irregularity existed and dismissed the revision.

What did the court decide?

The civil revision application filed by the petitioner was dismissed.

Yogendra Choudhary Vs Meena Devi and Ors. — Property and Title | Patna HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Revision No.152 of 2012

¶2

====================================================== 1. Yogendra Choudhary S/O Late Laxmi Choudhary R/O Uttar Maheshwari Ward No.6/7, Jogbani Nagar Panchayat , P.S.-Jogbani, DisttAraria .... .... Petitioner/s Versus 1. Meena Devi W/O Late Rajendra Choudhary R/O Uttar Maheshwari , Ward No.6/7, Jogbani Nagar Panchayat Netaji Chowk, P.S.-Jogbani, DisttAraria 2. Upendra Choudhary S/O Late Rajendra Choudhary R/O Uttar Maheshwari , Ward No.6/7, Jogbani Nagar Panchayat Netaji Chowk, P.S.Jogbani, Distt-Arariar/O Uttar Maheshwari , Ward No.6/7, Jogbani Nagar Panchayat Netaji Chowk, P.S.-Jogbani, Distt-Arariar/O Uttar Maheshwari , Ward No.6/7, Jogbani Nagar Panchayat Netaji Chowk, P.S.-Jogbani, DisttArariar/O Uttar Maheshwari , Ward No.6/7, Jogbani Nagar Panchayat Netaji Chowk, P.S.-Jogbani, Distt-Araria 3. Ravindra Choudhary S/O Late Rajendra Choudhary R/O Uttar Maheshwari , Ward No.6/7, Jogbani Nagar Panchayat Netaji Chowk, P.S.Jogbani, Distt-Araria 4. Govind Choudhary S/O Late Rajendra Choudhary R/O Uttar Maheshwari , Ward No.6/7, Jogbani Nagar Panchayat Netaji Chowk, P.S.Jogbani, Distt-Araria .... .... Opposite Party ====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioner/s : Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, Adv. For the Respondent/s : ……….. ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE JYOTI SARAN ORAL ORDER 2 15-10-2012 Heard Mr. Ganpati Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner. This civil application is directed against the order dated 23.6.2012 passed by learned Sub Judge-1, Araria in Misc. Case No. 13 of 2008 arising from Title Suit No. 68 of 2004 whereby the learned Court below on an application filed by the defendant-the father of the applicants under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil

¶3

Patna High Court C.R. No.152 of 2012 (2) dt.15-10-2012

¶4

2 / 4

¶5

Procedure, has been pleased to allow the same and set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 28.6.2006 passed in the title suit thereby restoring the suit to its original position.

¶6

The only issue which requires consideration on the challenge made to the impugned order is whether or not there was sufficient cause which prevented the defendant-the father of the applicants from appearing before the trial Court leading to the ex parte judgment and decree in question.

¶7

Perusal of the order impugned manifests that while the defendant Rajendra Choudhary- the father of the applicants had filed appearance on 12.8.2004 with Vakalatnama but thereafter he did not follow up the proceedings and as a consequence, the matter was fixed for ex parte hearing on 24.9.2004. Both the husband/father of the applicant-opposite parties namely Rajendra Choudhary as well as the father of Rajendra Choudhary namely Janak Choudhary were defendants in suit proceedings.

¶8

It is the case of the applicants while maintaining the application in question that following the ailment of his father Janak Choudhary, the husband of the opposite party No.1, Rajendra Choudhary was not able to pursue the matter in the Court below and while undergoing treatment Janak Choudhary died on 26.4.2005. It is further the case of the applicants that Rajendra

¶9

Patna High Court C.R. No.152 of 2012 (2) dt.15-10-2012

¶10

3 / 4

¶11

Choudhary himself also fell ill and while undergoing treatment from 25.6.2004 to 25.8.2006 also deceased on 13.9.2006. It is thereafter that the application in question was filed by his legal heirs the applicants - opposite parties herein.

¶12

The learned Court below upon examination of the oral witnesses examined by the applicants-opposite parties as also the documentary evidence being the medical prescriptions and the test reports recorded satisfaction on the sufficient cause shown by the applicants to maintain the application and has been pleased to allow the same resultantly, setting aside the judgment and decree dated 28.2.2006/1.3.2006 restoring the Title suit No. 68 of 2004 to its original number.

¶13

Mr. Trivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court reported in (2011) 3 SCC 545 (Parimal Vs. Veena @ Bharti) to question the order impugned submitting inter alia that the grounds assigned by the applicants did not fall within the meaning of the word “sufficient cause” as set out in the judgment.

¶14

I am afraid that the very judgment relied upon by learned counsel, in paragraph 16 covers the case of the petitioner and runs as follows.

¶15

“16. In order to determine the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the test that has to be applied is

¶16

Patna High Court C.R. No.152 of 2012 (2) dt.15-10-2012

¶17

4 / 4

¶18

whether the defendant honestly and sincerely intended to remain present when the suit was called on for hearing and did his best to do so. Sufficient cause is thus the cause for which the defendant could not be blamed for his absence. Therefore, the applicant must approach the court with a reasonable defence. Sufficient cause is a question of fact and the court has to exercise its discretion in the varied and special circumstances in the case at hand. There cannot be a straitjacket formula of universal application.”

¶19

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have

¶20

perused the materials on record.

¶21

The order impugned is a well reasoned order relying upon the oral as well as documentary evidence and only whereafter the learned Court below has recorded its satisfaction.

¶22

There neither being any jurisdictional error nor any material irregularly in the order passed by the learned Court below, no interference is called for in the same.

¶23

This civil revision application is dismissed.

¶24

(Jyoti Saran, J)

¶25

Bibhash/-

Yogendra Choudhary v. Meena Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogendra Choudhary v. Meena Devi and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Arvind Singh and Ors. Vs Dani Singh and Ors.

Daljeet Singh Vs the Executive Engineer,Electri

Sri Manorama Joshi and Ors. Vs the State of Bihar and Ors.

Smt. Lal Muni Devi and Anr. Vs Smt. Binita Saha @ Binita Sah

Sri Thakur Navaneet Priyajee @ Vs Lakhendar Bhagat and Anr.

Archana Mukherjee and Anr. Vs The State Of Bihar and Ors.