ORDER :

1. The brief facts relevant for consideration to adjudicate the issue involved in the present writ petition are that the petitioner/plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of contract and perpetual injunction on 17.11.2014 before the Court of learned Civil Judge, Jhunjhunu (for short ‘the learned trial court’). Treating the service of summons effected upon the respondent Radhey Shyam Jhunjhunuwala and his non-appearance before the Court, an order for ex-parte proceedings was passed on 17.1.2015 and likewise the ex-parte proceedings were ordered against the respondent -Ritesh on 22.7.2015.

2. The petitioner/plaintiff got examined two witnesses and the evidence was closed on 3.9.2015. Finally, after hearing the arguments the learned trial court passed an ex-parte judgment and decree dated 11.1.2017 and decreed the suit in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff.

3. After the ex-parte judgment and decree, the petitioner/plaintiff filed an application for execution of the judgment and decree which was numbered as 4/2017, Ramji Lal Vs. Radhey Shyam & Ors. On the application for execution of the decree, the Executing Court issued notices for the objections and thereafter, respondent Radhey Shyam appeared through his Counsel on 20.7.2017 and lateron respondent- Ritesh also appeared before the Executing Court. When the respondents/judgment debtors did not submit any objections, the Executing Court closed their right to file objections on 22.2.2018 and the Executing Court further ordered the Sub-Registrar for registration of the sale deed. Thereafter, the sale deed was registered in favour of the petitioner/plaintiff- Ramji Lal on 28.2.2018 and consequence thereof mutation of the land which is subject matter of the sale deed was also opened in his name.

4. During the pendency of the execution application, respondents No.1 and 3 namely; Rahdey Shyam and Ritesh filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC along-with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act before the learned trial court on 19.9.2017 for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 11.1.2017 with the averments that there was no proper service of summons upon them and they only came to know about the ex-parte judgment and decree after receiving the notices from the Executing Court and further submitted that they could not file the application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree in time because of floods in Bihar.

5. The petitioner/plaintiff submitted reply to the application filed by the respondents/applicants under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and submitted that respondent Radhey Shyam refused to accept the summons and therefore, the trial court passed the order for ex-parte proceedings against him on 17.1.2015. It was further stated that the other respondents were served by way of paper publication but they did not turn up and that’s why the ex-parte proceedings were ordered against them on 22.7.2015 and finally the suit was decreed on 11.1.2017.

6. The trial court dismissed the application filed by the respondents/defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC vide its order dated 14.12.2017.

7. Aggrieved by the order dated 14.12.2017 passed by the trial court, the defendants/applicants Radhey Shyam and Ritesh preferred an appeal No.7/2018 before the Court of learned District Judge, Jhunjhunu (for short ‘the Appellate Court’) and the said appeal was allowed by the learned Appellate Court vide its judgment dated 8.6.2018 setting aside the order dated 14.12.2017 passed by the trial court and allowed the application filed by the respondents/applicants under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and further set aside the judgment and decree dated 11.1.2017 and restored the civil suit No. 82/2014 and ordered that the trial court shall proceed to dispose of the suit expeditiously.

8. Against the order dated 8.6.2018 passed by the learned Appellate Court, the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner/plaintiff.

9. Learned counsel for the pe