IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE DWARKA DHISH BANSAL th ON THE 5 OF JULY, 2023 CIVIL REVISION No. 643 of 2017 BETWEEN:-

1. RAO MARTAND SINGH S/O RAJABAHADUR, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, VILL. NAIGADIYA,TEH.

BEGUMGANJ, DISTT. RAISEN (M.P.)

2. RAO GAJPATRAI S/O RAJABAHADUR, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, VILLAGE NAIGADIYA TEHSIL BEGUMGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

3. RAO GAJENDRASINGH S/O RAJABAHADUR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, VILLAGE NAIGADIYA TEHSIL BEGUMGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. RAO JIHENDRASINGH S/O RAJABAHADUR, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, VILLAGE NAIGADIYA TEHSIL BEGUMGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

5. CHOTIBAI W/O LATE RAO SAHABRAI, AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, VILLAGE NAIGADIYA TEHSIL BEGUMGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. DESHRAJ S/O LATE RAO SAHABRAI, AGED ABOUT

25 YEARS, VILLAGE NAIGADIYA TEHSIL BEGUMGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....APPLICANTS (BY SHRI JUBAIN PRASAD - ADVOCATE )

AND

1. RAVINDRAVIJAY BAHADUR S/O LATE SHRI RAOPRITHVI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, TIKAMGARH, DISTT. TIKAMGARH(M.P.)

2. RAO SANJAY (DEAD) THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES:-

2(a) ANKIT, S/O RAO SANJAY, AGED ABOUT 15 YEARS, 2(b) KRISHNA, S/O RAO SANJAY, AGED ABOUT 12 Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT YEARS, 2(c) MUSKAN, D/O RAO SANJAY, AGED ABOUT 12 YEARS, THROUGH THEIR LEGAL GUARDIAN, SMT. RAJABAI, R/O VILLAGE NAIGADIYA, TEHSIL BEGUMGANJ, DISTRICT RAISEN (M.P.)

3. RAJABAI W/O MAHENDRA SINGH, AGED ABOUT

45 YEARS, VILLAGE NAIGADIYA TEHSIL BEGUMGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

4. RANI MATHURABAI (DEAD)

5. RAO DILIP SINGH S/O LATE PRITHVI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, VILLAGE NAIGADIYA TEHSIL BEGUMGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

6. RAO NARENDRA SINGH S/O LATE PRITHVI SINGH, AGED ABOUT 67 YEARS, VILLAGE NAIGADIYA TEHSIL BEGUMGANJ (MADHYA PRADESH)

7. SMT RATNAKUNWAR D/O RAO RAJABAHADUR, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, JALANDAR (MADHYA PRADESH)

.....RESPONDENTS (BY SHRI PARTH KOPARIA - ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENTS 1, 5 AND 6)

This revision coming on for admission this day, the court passed the following:

ORDER

Heard on I.A No.12011/2022 which is an application under Order 22 rule

4 CPC for substitution of legal representatives of respondent 2-Rao Sanjay.

2. For the reasons mentioned in the I.A, the same is allowed with the direction to learned counsel for the applicants to carry out necessary amendment in the memo of revision today itself.

3. Accordingly, I.A No.12011/2022 is allowed/disposed of

4. Also heard on admission

5. This civil revision has been preferred by the applicants/plaintiffs Signature Not Verified Signed by: PRASHANT challenging the order dated 13.10.2017 passed by 1st Additional District Judge, Begumganj, District Raisen in miscellaneous civil appeal no.10/2009 reversing the order dated 09.03.2009 passed by Civil Judge Class-I, Begamganj, District Raisen in MJC no.08/2006, whereby learned trial Court dismissed the application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC filed by the respondent 1/defendant 2- Ravindravijay Bahadur, which in miscellaneous appeal has been allowed and ex parte judgment and decree dated 27.11.1982 passed by Civil Judge Class-II, Begumganj, District Raisen in civil suit no.121A/80 has been set aside.

6. Learned counsel for the applicants/plaintiffs submits that the respondent 1/defendant 2 after more than a period of 24 years of passing of judgment and decree dated 27.11.1982, preferred an application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC with false averments that too without filing any application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, which was filed at the fag end of trial and after hearing arguments on the application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC, which although was rejected by the trial Court.

7. Further, on the basis of findings recorded in para 30 of order dated 09.03.2009 passed by trial Court, learned counsel for the applicants submits that the defendant 2 was having knowledge of the ex parte judgment and decree, therefore, in absence of any prayer for condonation of delay, the application under Order 9 rule 13 CPC itself was not entertainable and ought to have been dismissed. He further submits that the counsel had