##PAGE1##

[2026:RJ-JP:12846]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1653/2017

1 Lallu Ram S/o Shri Govind Narayan, R/o Village Toda Bhata, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan, (Since

Deceased) Through Legal Representatives.

1.1 Bhori Devi W/o Lallu Ram, Aged About 62 Years, R/o Rab Mohalla, Toda Bhata, Jaipur-303301

1.2 Dilip Kumar Sharma S/o Lallu Ram, Aged About 39 Years, R/o 57, Ram Mohalla, Toda Bhata, Jaipur-303301.

1.3 Sonu Kumar Jangid S/o Lallu Ram, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Toda Bhata, Toda Bhata, Jaipur-303301 (Raj).

1.4 Neha Jangid W/o Jitendra Jangid D/o Lallu Ram, Aged About 43 Years, R/o 19, Shanti Nagar, Dadi Ka Phatak,

Vikas School, Benar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012

1.5 Lalita Jangid W/o Dinesh Jangid D/o Lallu Ram, Aged About 40 Years, R/o 19, Shanti Nagar, Dadi Ka Phatak,

Vikas School, Benar Road, Jhotwara, Jaipur-302012

1.6 Anita Jangid W/o Vishnu Jangid D/o Lallu Ram, Aged About 33 Years, R/o 94,95, Shiv Path, Prahlad Colony,

Sanganer, Jaipur-302029.

----Petitioners Versus

1 Sukha S/o Shri Parsa, Aged About 70 Years, (Dead During Suit)

2 Chotu S/o Shri Parsa, Aged About 60 Years, (Dead)

2.1 Gyarsi, Widow Of Chotu Ram, Resident Of Khijuria, Tehsil Chaksu, Dist. Jaipur (Deceased)

2.2 Mooli D/o Chotu Ram W/o Jagdish Jat, Resident Of Village Kacholiya, Tehsil Bassi, Dist. Jaipur.

3 Lallu, S/o Chootu

4 Ramkalyan S/o Chootu, Resident Of Khijuria Tiwadiyan, Tehsil Bassi, District, Jaipur.

5 Nathu S/o Shri Parsa, Resident Of Futolaav, Tehsil Jamwa Ramgad, Dist. Jaipur (Dead During Suit)

----Respondents/Plaintiffs

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Vikas Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vipul Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BIPIN GUPTA

Judgment / Order

27/03/2026

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 10:52:00 AM)

(Downloaded on 11/04/2026 at 04:42:43 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:12846] (2 of 4) [CW-1653/2017] 1. The present writ petition has been filed assailing the order dated 03.09.2016, passed by learned Additional District and Sessions Judge, No.2, Jaipur, District Jaipur, in Restoration Application No.75/2013, whereby the application filed by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC and Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for restoration of the application filed under

Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, has been dismissed.

2. Brief facts of the case are that a suit for declaration and permanent injunction was filed which came to be decreed ex-parte vide judgment and decree dated 22.07.1999. The petitioners thereafter filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for

setting aside the judgment and decree dated 22.07.1999.

3. The said application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was dismissed vide order dated 21.03.2013, in absence of the applicants. The applicants-petitioners thereafter filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC on 05.09.2013. The said application for restoration of the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was kept pending for almost three years and subsequently, the said application was dismissed vide order dated

03.09.2016.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners were seriously pursuing his remedy against the judgment and decree and was not negligent. However, the counsel appearing before the learned Court below could not remain present on 21.03.2013. Therefore, the application for setting aside the judgment and decree under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was rejected. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the counsel appearing before the learned Court below never informed

(Uploaded on 08/04/2026 at 10:52:00 AM)

(Downloaded on 11/04/2026 at 04:42:43 PM)

[2026:RJ-JP:12846] (3 of 4) [CW-1653/2017] about the rejection of the application in default and when it came to the notice of the petitioners, they immediately filed an application under Order 9 Rule 9 CPC for restoration of the

application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners further submits that the learned Trial Court ought to have taken a lenient view while deciding the restoratio