[2026:RJ-JP:8653]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 2924/2026 Mangi Lal Son Of Shri Mangla, Resident Of Khatiyon Ki Dhani, Shadurlapura, Tehsil Phulera, Distt. Jaipur (Rajasthan).

---Defendant No.1-Applicant-Petitioner Versus

1. Kana Ram Son Of Shri Bhairu Ram, Resident Of Village Mateda, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

2. Bhanwar Lal Son Of Shri Bhairu Ram, Resident Of Village Mateda, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

3. Heera Lal Son Of Shri Bhairu Ram, Resident Of Village Mateda, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

4. Hanuman Son Of Shri Bhairu Ram, Resident Of Village Mateda, Tehsil Phulera, District Jaipur (Rajasthan).

-------Plaintiff-Non-Applicant-Respondents

5. Hariprasad Son Of Shri Mangla, Resident Of Khatiyon Ki Dhani, Shadurlpura, Tehsil Phulera, Distt. Jaipur (Raj.) At Present Room No.5, Sarinath Badi Pawai Chowk, Mulund Colony, Mulund, West Mumbai 400082.

---Defendant No.2-Applicant-Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shashi Kant Saini For Respondent(s) :

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment

1. The present civil writ petition has been filed assailing the judgment dated 27.01.2026, passed by learned Additional District Judge No.1, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur, in Civil Misc. Appeal No.11/2025 (NCV No. 11/2025), whereby the learned Appellate Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the defendant-petitioner under Order 43 Rule 1 CPC and upheld the order dated 08.12.2025, passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Sambhar Lake, District Jaipur, in Civil Misc. Application No. 09/2023 (NCV No. 09/2023), whereby the application filed by the defendant- petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC was rejected.

2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the plaintiffs– respondents instituted a suit for specific performance of an agreement dated 10.07.1982 and for perpetual injunction against Mangi Lal (the present petitioner) and Hariprasad on 20.02.2008. Notices were issued to the defendants, including the present petitioner, on 22.02.2008, and the matter was fixed for 23.02.2008. Upon holding that service was sufficient, the learned Trial Court proceeded ex-parte against the defendants, including the present petitioner on 23.02.2008 and posted the matter for ex-parte evidence of the plaintiffs–respondents. Ultimately, the suit was decreed ex-parte vide judgment dated 28.07.2022.

2.1 Thereafter, the defendant-petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, contending that there was no valid or sufficient service effected upon him and that he acquired knowledge of the decree only when notices in the execution proceedings were served upon him on 05.05.2023. He further submitted that immediately upon gaining knowledge of the decree, he applied for certified copies on 08.05.2023, which were supplied on 11.05.2023. Accordingly, he prayed for setting aside of the ex-parte decree.

2.2 It was also alleged that a bare perusal of the notices allegedly served upon applicants demonstrates that no proper or sufficient service effected. It was also averred that defendant No. 2, Hariprasad, had not been served as he had been residing in Mulund, Mumbai, since 1990. It was further averred that neither the father’s name nor the addresses of the alleged witnesses were disclosed in the service report. The petitioner emphasized that it is a settled principle of law that a suit should be decided after affording both parties an adequate opportunity of hearing.

2.3. In reply to the said application, the plaintiffs–respondents contended that the defendants had full knowledge of the pendency of the suit as well as the decree. It was submitted that the wife of the present petitioner had refused to accept the notices; consequently, the notices were affixed at the petitioner’s residence in the presence of two witnesses. It was further contended that the defendants are siblings and were du