Dismissed

Tarengna Devi and Ors. v. Binod Bharti

Patna HC12 May 2015SA/714/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this Second Appeal arising from a suit for specific performance, the High Court held that no substantial question of law arose. The appellants failed to show grounds to disturb the lower appellate court's decision which upheld the plaintiffs' decree after dismissing the petition to set aside the ex parte order.

What did the court decide?

Second Appeal dismissed; decree of lower appellate court upheld.

Tarengna Devi and Ors. Vs Binod Bharti — Specific Performance | Patna HC (2015)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA

¶2

Second Appeal No.714 of 2010

¶3

=========================================================== 1. Tarengna Devi, wife of Late Ram Lochan Ram 2. Lal Babu Thakur, son of Late Ram Lochan Ram Both residents of Mohalla Sheoganj, PS Arra Town, District Bhojpur ………… Defendants …………… Appellants .... .... Appellants Versus Binod Bharti, son of Jagdeo bharti, residernt of Village Bhagwan, PS Sandesh, District Bhojpur, at present residing at Mohalla Shitaltola, PS Arra, Town, Distreict Bhojpur …………. Plaintiff …………… Respondent .... .... Respondent

¶4

=========================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. SIYA RAM SHAHI For the Respondent/s : Mr.

¶5

=========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V. NATH ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 12-05-2015

¶6

Heard Mr. Siya Ram Shahi, learned Counsel for the

¶7

appellants.

¶8

Assailing the judgment and decree passed by the appellate court below dismissing their appeal, the defendants have preferred this Second Appeal.

¶9

The facts are not disputed that a suit for specific performance was filed against the defendants. That suit was decreed ex parte. The defendants filed a petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree. However, the said petition was dismissed. Thereafter the appeal was also dismissed. The matter ultimately came to be dismissed in this Court in Civil Revision application. On being unsuccessful in their attempt in getting the ex parte decree set aside under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the defendants-appellants thereafter

¶10

Patna High Court SA No.714 of 2010 dt.12-05-2015

¶11

¶12

filed a regular appeal under Section 96 CPC against the decree. In the said appeal the appellants ventured to raise question of non service of summons etc. but the appellate court turned down the plea on the basis that earlier all those facts have been considered and decided in the proceeding under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Thereafter the appellate court below further also considered the judgment of the trial court and concurred with the findings and held that the plaintiffs were entitled to the decree passed.

¶13

After considering the judgments of both the courts below, the admitted facts as well as submission on behalf of the appellants, this Court does not find any substantial question of law arising for consideration in this Second Appeal which is accordingly dismissed.

¶14

(V. Nath, J.)

¶15

Snkumar/-

¶16

Tarengna Devi and Ors. v. Binod Bharti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tarengna Devi and Ors. v. Binod Bharti

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nawl Kishore Pd. Singh and Ors. Vs Sita Ram Singh and Ors.

Smt. Namita Chandra Vs Md. Taslim and Ors.

Bageshwar Mandal and Ors. Vs Kailash Mandla and Ors.

Dindayal Singh and Ors. Vs Lakhichand Mahto

Reena Sharma and Ors. Vs Parbha Devi and Ors.

Sanjog Kumar Rai @ Sanjog Rai Vs The State Of Bihar