JUDGMENT

1) The appellants/plaintiffs have, by virtue of the present Civil 2nd Appeal, challenged the judgment and decree dated 05.06.2012 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Budgam, as upheld by the learned Additional District Judge, Budgam, in terms of judgment and decree dated 12.06.2023 in a suit filed by the appellants/plaintiffs against the respondents/ defendants.

2) It seems that the appellants/plaintiffs filed a suit against the predecessor-in-interest of the respondents/ defendants before the Court of learned Sub Judge, Budgam (hereinafter “the trial court”) seeking a decree for setting aside the exparte decree dated 13.06.2001 passed by the said Court against the appellants/plaintiffs.

3) According to the plaintiffs, plaintiff No.1 is the owner of land measuring 5 kanals under Survey No.761 situated at Village Naroo Tehsil and District Budgam and the said land is in permissive possession of the defendants for the last more than ten years. It was pleaded that the defendants in connivance with revenue agencies managed mutations in terms of Section 4 and 8 of the J&K Agrarian Reforms Act in their favour in respect of the said land. The said mutation orders were challenged by plaintiff No.1 before the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Budgam, by way of an appeal but the same was dismissed, whereafter plaintiff No.1 filed a revision petition before the J&K Special Tribunal at Srinagar. The order of the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Budgam, was set aside and the matter was remanded to Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Budgam. It was further pleaded that the defendants had filed a suit against the plaintiffs before the Court of learned Sub Judge, Budgam, titled ‘Ghulam Rasool Kuchay and another vs. Samad Bhat and others’ in which they obtained a decree in exparte against the plaintiffs.

4) The plaintiffs challenged the impugned judgment and decree dated 13.06.2001 passed by the learned Sub Judge, Budgam, on the grounds that no summons was ever served upon them. It was contended that signatures of plaintiffs Samad Bhat and Rashid Bhat are not appearing on the said summons and that the signatures appearing on the summons pertain to some other persons. According to the plaintiffs, the exparte judgment and decree dated 13.06.2001 is a product of fraud perpetrated by the defendants upon the court. It was further contended that the defendants herein, on the basis of false evidence, projected themselves to be the owners in possession of land in question and, therefore, they have perpetrated fraud upon the court.

5) The suit was contested by the defendants by filing their written statement wherein it was pleaded that the suit land is in their peaceful possession for the last more than 35 years and that the same has devolved upon them in terms of Section 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. According to the defendants they have been cultivating the suit land since Kharif 1971 and even prior to that as tenants, as a consequence whereof, ownership rights in respect of the said land have been vested upon them in terms of Section 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act. It has been contended that after the remand of case to the Joint Agrarian Reforms Commissioner, Budgam, the appeal of the plaintiffs has again been dismissed and the mutations under Section 4 and 8 of the Agrarian Reforms Act in favour of the defendants have been upheld.

6) Regarding the civil suit filed by the defendants against the plaintiffs before the Court of Sub Judge, Budgam, it has been submitted that the plaintiffs herein were duly summoned and served but they did not choose to pursue their case. It has been further submitted that the plaintiffs herein appeared before the court through their counsel but later on stopped appearing, as a consequence whereof, exparte proceedings were initiated against them. According to the defendants, they led exparte evidence in the suit and a declaratory and injunctive decree came to be passed in th