[2026:RJ-JP:745]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1229/2025 Mangejsingh S/o Motisingh, R/o Plot No. 53, JS Colony, Road No.17, Vishwakarma Industrial Area Jaipur ----Petitioner/Defendant Versus

1. Ramniwas S/o Omkar, R/o Dhani Leeelaptalya, Tan Khelna, Tehsil Kotputli District Kotputli Behror Presently R/o Jaisinghpura, Near Canal Of Irrigation Department, Tehsil Virat Nagar, District Kotputli Bheror ……..Respondent/plaintiff

2. Bajrang Singh S/o Moti Singh (Deceased), Through Lrs

2/1. Udaisingh S/o Late Bajrang Singh, R/o Village Jaisingh-

pura, Tehsil Virat Nagar District Kotputli Behror

2/2. Vikas Singh S/o Late Bajrang Singh, R/o Village Jaisingh-

pura, Tehsil Virat Nagar District Kotputli Behror

2/3. Prakash Singh S/o Late Bajrang Singh, R/o Village Jais-

inghpura, Tehsil Virat Nagar District Kotputli Behror

2/4. Manju Kanwar D/o Late Bajrangsingh W/o Jagdish Singh, R/o Gondusar, Tehsil Bidasar, District Churu

2/5. Daya Kanwar D/o Late Bajrangsingh W/o Daleep Singh, R/o Gondusar, Tehsil Bidasar, District Churu

3. Sohan Kanwar W/o Ramswaroop Singh, R/o Jaisinghpura, Tehsil Viratnagar, District Kotputli Behror

4. Santosh Kanwar D/o Ramswaroop Singh W/o Bhanwar Singh, R/o Gondusar, Tehsil Bidasar District Churu

5. Lichma D/o Ramswaroop Singh W/o Omsingh, R/o Gondusar, Tehsil Bidasar District Churu

6. Santosh Kanwar D/o Ramswaroop Singh W/o Amarsingh, R/o Gondusar, Tehsil Bidasar District Churu ---Proforma-Respondents/Applicants No.2 to6/Defendants For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Kamini Pareek with Mr. Sarthak Chaubey For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prem Chand Dewanda HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

09/01/2026

1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 01.10.2024 passed by the learned Additional District Judge No.1, Shahpura, District Jaipur, whereby the application filed under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the pending applica-

tion under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC came to be dismissed.

2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that against the ex-parte decree dated 20.10.2010, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was preferred, which remained pending adjudication. The said application was dismissed in default on 03.07.2024. Thereafter, the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed within a period of 30 days from the date of dismissal in default, i.e., on 02.08.2024.

3. Learned counsel further submits that the absence of the petitioner as well as his counsel on 03.07.2024 was bona fide and, therefore, prays that the order dated 01.10.2024 be quashed and set aside and the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC be restored and decided on merits.

4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents supports the order dated 01.10.2024 and submits that though the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC against the ex-parte decree dated 20.10.2010 was pending adjudication, the same was not being diligently pursued by the petitioner. Therefore, the learned trial Court rightly dismissed the application for default on 03.07.2024.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. This Court finds that the decree dated 20.10.2010 was passed ex-parte and that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC had been pending adjudication before the learned trial Court since 2016. This Court also finds that the petitioner was, to some extent, careless in prosecuting the said application. However, it is also evident that the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC was filed within 30 days from the dismissal in default. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC ought to have been allowed.

7. Accordingly, the order dated 01.10.2024 is quashed and set aside. The application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC stands allowed. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is restored to its original number. The learned trial Court is directed to de