High Court dismissed petitioner's challenge against appellate order setting aside an ex-parte decree, affirming correct service and limitation finding, and directed speedy hearing of underlying suit.
Application dismissed; Sub Judge directed to proceed with Title Suit expeditiously within one year without unnecessary adjournment.
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.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.1448 of 2018
======================================================
... ... Petitioners
Versus
... ... Respondents
====================================================== Appearance : For the Petitioners : Mr. Chandra Kant, Advocate For the Respondents : Mr. Ranjan Kumar Dubey, Advocate Mr. Kumar Gaurav, Advocate Mr. Bambam Kumar, Advocate
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP KUMAR ORAL ORDER
10 06-10-2023 Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2 . The petitioner is challenging the order dated
08.06.2018 passed by learned Additional District & Sessions Judge, VI, Siwan in Miscellaneous Appeal No. 19 of 2013, by which the learned Additional District & Sessions Judge has set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 07.05.2013 passed by the learned Munsif, Siwan in Miscellaneous Case No. 01 of 2007.
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1448 of 2018(10) dt.06-10-2023 2/3
3. The Title Suit No.195 of 1991 was decreed ex-parte. An application for setting aside the ex-parte decree was filed by the respondents under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the same was numbered as Miscellaneous Case No. 01 of 2007. The original Court dismissed the Miscellaneous Case vide order dated 07.05.2013 after giving a finding that the case put up by the applicant was not believable and the Miscellaneous Case was filed after a delay of 11 years. Against the aforesaid order, the respondents preferred Miscellaneous Appeal No.19 of 2013, which has been allowed by a detailed judgment and order, which is impugned in this case. The learned Additional District and Sessions Judge has rightly held that service of summons/notices on the defendants was not proper and the limitation has been explained sufficiently and thereafter set aside the order passed by the original Court.
4 . Learned counsel for the petitioner has tried to re-canvass the points which were earlier canvassed by him in the Court below and wants this Court to examine the entire materials available on record to reverse the order of the Appellate Court.
5 . I see no illegality and infirmity in the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.1448 of 2018(10) dt.06-10-2023 3/3
findings arrived at by the Appellate Court. Moreover, the suit should always be decided on contest to avoid multiplicity of proceedings.
6 . In the aforesaid circumstances, this application is dismissed. The Sub Judge concerned is directed to proceed with the Title Suit and decide the same expeditiously preferably within one year from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties. The Sub Judge will proceed ex-parte against non-cooperating party.
(Sandeep Kumar, J)
pawan/-
U
1 issue framed by the court
Whether setting aside the ex-parte decree was correct when service of summons was not proper and limitation issues were explained.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
Shyamdeo Singh and Ors
Bharat Singh and Ors
Sandeep Kumar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
