Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 626 (RAJ)

Jagdish Narain Meena v. Rukmani Devi

2013-03-30

JAINENDRA KUMAR RANKA

body2013
JUDGMENT 1. - The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition contending therein that respondent No. 1 had filed a civil suit bearing No. 7/2010 for declaration and permanent injunction before the Civil Judge(Jr. Division), Sanganer, Jaipur under Order 7 Rule 1 CPC on 12.01.2010, which has been decided ex-parte against the petitioner on 15.12.2010. The petitioner filed an application bearing No. 178/2011 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC before the Additional Civil Judge(Jr. Division) & Metropolitan Magistrate No. 26, Jaipur Metropolitan(Sanganer), as early as on 31.05.2011 along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, praying therein to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 15.12.2010 passed in Suit No. 7 of 2010, Rukmani Devi v. Jagdish & Ors. , and in the interest of justice he may be allowed to file reply. 2. Submission of the learned counsel for petitioner is that the said application is pending and has not yet been decided by the trial Court, despite appearance given by the Counsel for the petitioner on almost all the occasions and the matter is not being decided and it is being adjourned on one pretext or other. He, therefore, prayed that the trial Court may be directed to decide the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, as early as possible. 3. I have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and carefully gone through the contents of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, filed by the petitioner. 4. Upon perusal of the application, it appears that the application is pending for the last more than 1 year and 9 months, which ought to have been decided by the trial Court. After going through the order-sheets of the trial Court, it is noticed that the case is being adjourned on one pretext or other and the application is still pending. 5. Be that as it may, the trial Court is directed to decide the application of the petitioner filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date of production of certified copy of this order. 6. With the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.Petition disposed of. *******