Court No. - 18
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 6843 of 2018 Petitioner :- Shri Krishna Vishwakarma @ Krishna Respondent :- Civil Judge (Senior Division) Court No. 11 Allahabad And 4 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Jitendra Yadav,Sanjay Kumar Yadav
Hon'ble Mahesh Chandra Tripathi,J.
Heard learned counsel for the defendant-applicant.
In view of the order, which is proposed to be passed today, notices need not go to the plaintiff-respondents.
The applicant has approached this Court for issuing direction to the Civil Judge (Senior Division), Court No.11, Allahabad to decide the application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC registered as Case No.111 of 2006 moved by the defendant- petitioner in Suit No.88 of 2003 (Raj Kumar Mishra and others vs. Shri Krishna Vishwakarma) within stipulated time.
Learned counsel for the defendant-petitioner states that the second and third respondents filed the aforesaid Suit No.88 of 2003 in the Court of Civil Judge (Senior Division), Allahabad and the same was decreed ex-parte in favour of the plaintiffs- respondents on 21.4.2006. When the petitioner came to know about the aforesaid ex-parte judgement and order, he filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC for recalling the judgement and order dated 21.4.2006 and the same was registered as Misc. Case No.111 of 2006. Finally, the first respondent had rejected the aforesaid application on 8.9.2011. Challenging the order dated 8.9.2011, the petitioner filed Civil Appeal No.144 of 2011 and learned Additional District Judge, Court No.12, Allahabad has allowed the said appeal and set aside the order of the trial court dated 8.9.2011. He further makes submission that after remand of the matter several dates have been fixed by the Court below for deciding the aforesaid application and the same has not yet been decided.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/s Shiv Cotex Versus Tirgun Auto Plast P. Ltd and others, 2011 (89) ALR 232, has made the following observations:-
" It is high time that courts become sensitive to delays in justice delivery system and realize that adjournments do dent the efficacy of judicial process and if this menace is not controlled adequately, the litigant public may lose faith in the system sooner than later. The Courts, particularly Trial Courts, must ensure that on every date of hearing, effective progress takes place in the suit."
Considering the above, this petition stands disposed of with the direction upon the Court concerned to consider and decide the Misc. Case No.111 of 2006 moved by the defendant-petitioner in Suit No.88 of 2003 (Raj Kumar Mishra and others vs. Shri Krishna Vishwakarma) in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible and preferably within three months from the date of production of certified copy of this order, without granting unnecessary adjournment to either of the parties, except upon payment of cost.
Order Date :- 14.9.2018 RKP