Court No. - 30
Case :- MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 986 of 2019 Petitioner :- Mahmood Hasan And 5 Others Respondent :- Xth Additional District Judge And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Nigamendra Shukla
Hon'ble Vivek Kumar Birla,J.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.
Present petition has been filed challenging the order dated 12.12.2018 passed by the Additional District Judge, Court No. 10 Muzaffar Nagar in Civil Revision No. 16 of 2016 (Ramesh Chand (died) vs. Mahmood Hasan and others).
By the order dated 12.12.2018 revision filed by the plaintiff-respondent against the order dated 27.2.2016 was allowed and the matter has been remanded to the trial Court for decision afresh. By the order dated 27.2.2016, the application (application no. 3-Ga) filed by the petitioner being Misc. Case No. 20 of 2015 has been allowed. The aforesaid proceedings were admittedly passed in execution proceedings. The aforesaid order was passed on the ground that only a mistake is being rectified and the order dated 23.11.2017 whereby Misc. Case No. 110 of 1999 was allowed on payment of cost of Rs. 400/- was to be complied with and therefore, the Misc. Case No. 110 of 1999 is restored to its original number. The revision was filed by the plaintiff.
It is not in dispute that in execution a sale deed has already been executed by the Court in performance of the decree and the same has been registered. Under such circumstances, the matter has been remanded back.
A perusal of paragraphs 9, 10, 11 of the petition also indicates that application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC registered as Misc. Case No. 90 of 1990 was filed for recalling the exparte decree dated 15.3.1990. The said application was dismissed in default on 17.1.1992 and thereafter a Misc. Application No. 164 of 1992 was filed with delay condonation application for recalling the order dated 17.1.1992. In the meantime, a decree has been executed even the restoration application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has not been restored to its original number. In the order of remand, it is clearly noticed that the trial Court has not considered the delay of filing the restoration application filed in the year 2015 for recalling of the order passed in the year 2012.
In the totality of the circumstances, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the order impugned herein.
Present petition is devoid of merit and accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
Order Date :- 25.2.2019 Abhishek