Court No. - 54
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11412 of 2014 Petitioner :- Smt. Ram Beti Since Deceased Thru Jantoo Singh Respondent :- Balister Singh Counsel for Petitioner :- Anshu Chaudhary
Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is permitted to add Article 227 of the Constitution in the provision clause of the writ petition.
In view of the office report dated 30th July, 2019 service of notice upon the sole contesting respondent is deemed sufficient.
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State.
By means of the present petition, the petitioner has questioned the correctness of the order dated 22nd January, 2011, whereby the ex parte judgment and decree dated 3rd January, 2005 passed in Case No.- 188 of 2001 has come to be recalled at the instance of defendants-respondents, who had pleaded that there was no proper service of summons. The petitioners' revision against the said order has also come to be dismissed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Etah vide order dated 22nd January, 2011.
The crux the matter is that the suit for cancellation of the sale deed has come to be decreed in favour of the plaintiff-petitioner and the grievance is that the ex parte order was passed only after service of summons. However, from the perusal of the order, I find that service of notice was only by way of substituted service.
In the opinion of the Court if the ex parte judgment and order has been recalled in a suit for cancellation of the sale deed which admittedly stands in favour of the defendant-respondent, it would be in the interest of justice that the suit is decided on merits after evidence by both the parties and giving opportunity of hearing to both the parties.
In the considered opinion of the Court, by the order dated 22nd January, 2011 the court has intended to do complete justice in the case and considering the facts and circumstances of the case and the findings returned by the court below, I do not find it to be a fit case to exercise jurisdiction of superintendence under Article 227 of the Constitution.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the proceedings of the suit may be expedited as the suit is of the year 2001 and suit property may be protected.
In view of the above, it is hereby provided that the trail court shall proceed to conclude the proceedings of the suit bearing O.N.- 188 of 2001 and shall dispose of the same as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of six months from the date of production of certified copy of this order.
It is further provided that the parties to the suit shall not create any third party rights in respect of the suit property during the pendency of the suit.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Order Date :- 31.7.2019 Atmesh