Back
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN (JODHPUR BENCH)
MS. JUSTICE REKHA BORANA, J
LRS OF SMT. NATHI – Appellant
Versus
LRS OF DHARWA – Respondent
CMA / 734 / 2025
ORDER :
REKHA BORANA, J.
1. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that learned Trial Court erroneously rejected the application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC as preferred on behalf of the defendants on the premise that the same was filed after a delay of more than 12 years of the execution proceedings been initiated by the decree-holder. Learned counsel submits that in fact, the notice in the execution proceedings was never ever served on Nathi Devi i.e. the original defendant. It is only in the year 2024 when the legal representatives of Nathi Devi were taken on record and notices were issued to them that they came to know about the decree in question. Therefore, the application could not have been termed to be delayed.
2. Learned Senior Counsel appearing in caveat for the respondents submits that in the execution proceedings, the learned Trial Court had taken a presumption of service on defendant in view of the fact that a registered notice was sent to her and no acknowledgment receipt of the same was received. In view of the same, service on the defendant in the execution proceedings was complete and thus, the application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC filed in the year 2024 was clearly time barred and hence, rightly been rejected by the learned Trial Court.
3. In view of the submissions made, Admit. Issue notice.
4. Notices need not be issued as respondents are duly represented.
5. Call for the record.
6. Heard on stay petition.
7. Meanwhile, further proceedings in Execution Case No.118/2012 pending before Additional District Judge No.2, Udaipur shall remain stayed.
8. List the matter after receipt of the record.
The court emphasized the necessity of actual service of notice and the consideration of delay circumstances in applications under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC.
Parties cannot pursue stay applications simultaneously in different courts without risking delays; the conduct of petitioners may warrant dismissal of stay requests.
The court affirmed that a delay in challenging a decree cannot be condoned without sufficient cause, especially when the application lacks an adequate explanation for prolonged inaction.
Actual service of summons by registered post acknowledgment due is valid, even if defendants reside outside jurisdiction, and non-compliance with procedural rules does not equate to no service.
Irregularity in service of summons does not justify setting aside an ex parte decree if the defendant had knowledge of the proceedings.
Proper service of notice is essential in execution proceedings; failure to follow mandatory procedures renders ex-parte orders invalid.
Irregularity in the service of notice can lead to setting aside of orders and allowing further proceedings.
The Trial Court's decision in favor of the plaintiffs/respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and against the appellant without ensuring notice to the appellant and/or his counsel had been effected was in violation ....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
