IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
GANESH RAM MEENA, J.
Pratap S/o Chandra Ram – Appellant
Versus
Jagmal S/o Gopal (deceased) through LRs Surendra Singh S/o Jagmal – Respondent
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 23516 of 2017
Decided on : 05-10-2023
Partition Suit - Restoration of Suit Proceedings - Limitation Act, 1963 - [FACT OF THE CASE] The respondents filed a suit for partition of ancestral property. The trial court passed an ex-parte judgment and preliminary decree in favor of the respondents. The First Appellate Authority set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. The Second Appellate Authority upheld the judgment and preliminary decree. The suit was dismissed for non-appearance of the plaintiffs' counsel after an interim order for maintaining status quo. The restoration application was allowed by the trial court, but the revision petition against the restoration order was dismissed by the Board of Revenue. The instant writ petition was filed by the petitioners challenging the restoration order. [FINDING OF THE COURT] The court held that the dismissal of the suit for non-appearance of the counsel was unjustified, as it annulled the adjudication made by the trial court and the appellate authorities. The court also found that technicalities should not be allowed to scrap the exercise made by the trial court and the appellate authorities. The court emphasized that substantial justice should be done to the litigants. [ISSUES] A. Whether the dismissal of the suit for non-appearance of the counsel after passing of the judgment and preliminary decree which was pending for scrutiny before High Court is justified in the given facts and circumstances of the case? B. Whether the restoration application in the given facts and circumstances of the case was liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay when no application for condonation of delay in filing an application was preferred? C. Whether after passing of the preliminary decree which has been finally affirmed up to High Court can be rendered inconsequential by dismissal of the suit for non-prosecution? [RATIO DECIDENDI] The court held that technicalities should not be allowed to annul the adjudication made by the trial court and the appellate authorities. The court emphasized that substantial justice should be done to the litigants. The court also found that the order of restoration of the suit was just and proper for substantial justice. [FINAL DECISION] The court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the restoration order. The stay application and pending application(s) were also dismissed.
ORDER :
1. The facts in brief requiring for adjudication to the issue involved in the present writ petition are that the respondents/plaintiffs Jagmal Singh & others filed a suit in the Court of learned Sub Divisional Officer, Jhunjhunu, for partition in the ratio of 1/3 and 2/3 of the land bearing Khasra No.9/2 measuring 3 bigha 10 biswa, khasra No.13/1 measuring 102 bigha 10 biswa and khasra No.163 measuring 8 bigha 1 biswa situated at Village Farat, Tehsil Chirawa, District Jhunjhunu. On 30.08.1988 ex-parte proceeding were ordered against the petitioner defendants and the matter was fixed for the evidence of the plaintiffs. The Court of Assistant Collector, Chirawa (for short ‘the trial court’) after taking into consideration the plaintiffs evidence passed an ex-parte judgment and preliminary decree on 05.09.1988.
In the revenue suit it was averred that the plaintiffs and the defendants were belonging to the same family. The dispute was in regard to their ancestral property and both the parties were in continuous possession of the same from the time of their ancestors. It was stated that Ganpat and Chandra Ram were elders in the family and as such they were Karta thereof. During the lifetime of Chandra Ram, Gopal and Ganpat, the parties were cultivating the disputed land jointly by mutual arrangement. In that situation the legal partition of the land between the parties did not take place. It was stated that mutation No.64 of the disputed land was entered in the name of Chandra Ram s/o Shri Ramlal without the knowledge of the plaintiffs and contrary to their interest. When the plaintiffs came to know about the attestation of the mutation which is alleged to be done by collusion and without any basis as all the legal heirs of Chandra Ram had equal shares in the disputed land and the ancestors of these of three were entitled to 1/3rd share out of the total land, they have filed the suit for partition.
2. By the ex-parte judgment and preliminary decree dated 05.09.1988, the Tehsildar, Chirawa was ordered to perform the decree of partition of the subject property in the ratio of 1/3 to plaintiff Jagmal, 1/3 to Chandraram and 1/3 to Ganpat, the operative portion of which is reproduced as under:-
^^vr% okn oknhx.k fMØh fd;k tkdj oknhx.k dks Hkwfe [k0 ua09@2 jdck 3 ch?kk 10 fcLok] [ka0ua0 13@1 jdck 102 ch?kk 10 fcLok o [ka0 ua0 163 jdck 8 ch?kk 1 fcLok okds xzke QjV dk oknhx.k dks 1@3 fgLls dk [kkrsnkj dk'rdkj ?kksf"kr fd;k tkrk gS o oknhx.k 1@3 fgLlk dk caVokjk fd;k tkrk gS tks rglhynkj fpM+kok dks rgjhj tkjh gks fd og ekSds ij tkdj oknhx.k o izfroknhx.k dh Hkwfe [ka0 ua09@2 jdck 3 ch?kk 10 fcLok [k0ua0 13@1 jdck 102 ch?kk 10 fcLok [k0ua0 163 jdck 8 ch?kk 1 fcLok ekSds ij tkdj caVokjk fd;k tkdj cVokjs dh fjiksVZ U;k;ky; es is'k djs bl laca/k esa izkjafHkd fMØh tkjh dh tkosaA blh ds vuqlkj [krkSuh vyx&vyx dh tkosaA^^
3. Being aggrieved by the ex-parte judgment and the preliminary decree dated 05.09.1988 passed by the trial court, the defendants Rawat and Pratap preferred an appeal in the Court of learned Revenue Appellate Authority, Sikar (for short ‘the First Appellate Authority’), which was allowed vide judgment dated 07.01.1989 thereby setting aside the ex-parte judgment and preliminary decree dated 05.09.1988 passed by the trial court, the operative portion of which is reproduced as under:-
^^geus mijksDr cgl ij euu fd;k ,o v/khuLFk U;k;ky; dh i=koyh o bl U;k;ky; dh i=koyh dk v/;;u fd;k tks Li"V gS fd vihykUVl dk Lo0 firk pUnzk gh fooknkLin Hkwfe;ksa dk rukg [kkrsnkj d`"kd FkkA bl rF; dks fMliz;w djus ds fy, jsLiksMsUV@oknhx.k n~okjk bl U;k;ky; vFkok v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa dksbZ Hkh vfHkys[k vFkok lk{; izLrqr ugha fd;k gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa okn dh iqf"V esa ,d ek= ekSf[kd lk{; izLrqr dh xbZ gS tks Lo;a oknh txeky dh gS] ftldk dksjkscksjs'ku vU; fdlh Hkh ekSf[kd vFkok fyf[kr lk{; n~okjk ugha fd;k x;k gSA ,slh fLFkfr esa jsLiksUMsUV@oknhx.k dk okn fdlh Hkh izdkj ls v/khuLFk U;k;ky; esa izekf.kr ugha gSA v/khuLFk U;k;ky; n~okjk jsL
Bhagmal & Ors. Vs. Kunawar Lal & Ors.
Dipak Chandra Ruhidas v. Chandan Kumar Sarkar [(2003) 7 SCC 66]
Ganduri Koteshwaramma & Anr. Vs. Chakiri Yanadi & Anr.
Phoolchand and Anr. Vs. Gopal Lal (AIR 1967 SC 1470)
Sneh Gupta Vs. Devi Sarup & Ors.
Sayeda Akhtar v. Abdul Ahad [(2003) (7) SCC 52]
The court emphasized that technicalities should not be allowed to annul the adjudication made by the trial court and the appellate authorities, and that substantial justice should be done to the liti....
Bar under Order IX Rule 9 of the Code does not apply in a suit for partition, since the right to enforce partition is a legal incident of a joint tenancy, and as long as such tenancy subsists, any of....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that a suit for partition can be barred by law and limitation if there is already a decree and final decree in place, and the plaintiff fails to en....
The court upheld the trial court's discretion in rejecting the application to restore a suit dismissed for default, finding no sufficient cause for the appellants' absence during proceedings.
The concept of 'sufficient cause' under Order IX Rule 13 CPC must be judged objectively, and the party seeking to set aside an ex-parte decree must provide a reasonable cause for their non-appearance....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the plea of res judicata requires consideration of the pleadings, issues, and decision in the previous suit, which is beyond the scope of Orde....
The condonation of delay in restoring a civil suit for specific performance must be based on sufficient cause, and an exorbitant and inordinate delay without such cause can lead to the quashing of th....
Courts must reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 if it discloses no cause of action or is barred by limitation. This power must be used to terminate vexatious litigation where 'clever drafting' at....
The right to seek partition is a recurring cause of action, and a fresh suit is not barred by the dismissal of a previous suit for non-prosecution under CPC.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.