Badam Singh vs Bindabai and Others

Brij Kishore Dube, Judge

Heard on the question of admission and perused the record. This Civil Revision u/s 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is directed by the revisionist/non-applicant/plaintiff against the impugned order dated 19/05/12 passed by the learned I Civil Judge, Class-II, Vidisha in MJC No. 01/12 whereby an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 of the respondents/applicants/defendants has been allowed and the parties are directed to maintain status quo.

Learned counsel for the revisionist contended that the impugned order dated 19/05/12 passed by the learned Trial Court is erroneous as it has not considered the effect of the order sheets dated 09/11/11 to 25/02/12 of the revenue Court wherein the presence of Kevalkishan and Girjabai is mentioned. Further, without submitting the application seeking interim relief, the learned Trial Court has granted the same on a oral prayer and that too without considering the fact that the application thereof was rejected earlier. On these grounds, learned counsel prayed for setting aside the impugned order.

Learned counsel in support of his contention has cited the cases of D. Gopinathan Pillai Vs. State of Kerala and Another, and Lanka Venkateswarlu (dead) by Lrs. Vs. State of A.P., and others, 2011(3) MPLJ 135.

Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents argued in support of the impugned order and cited the cases of Bramha Kumar Vs. Ramratan, and Parimal Vs. Veena @ Bharti,

It is revealed from the perusal of the record that the revisionist/non-applicant/plaintiff filed a suit against the applicants/defendants seeking a decree for declaration and permanent injunction. After service of notice on the respondents, none appeared before the learned Trial Court and, therefore, ex parte decree dated 25/02/12 was passed by the learned Trial Court, thereafter, an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., was filed on 24/04/12 by the respondents for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree on the ground that the service of notice was not effected on them, which was received by one Prahlad and thereafter, Kanhaiyalal, who was the husband of the respondent No. 1 and father of the respondents No. 2 to 4, fell ill and subsequently, died on 08/03/12, therefore, they could not appear before the learned Trial Court. They have also filed an application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in filing the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., The application for condoning the delay was opposed by the non-applicant/revisionist. The learned Trial Court after considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and the material on record has allowed the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condoning the delay in filing the application. Thereafter, on the oral prayer of the learned counsel for the respondents/applicants and considering the material on record, the parties are directed to maintain status quo and the case was fixed for reply of the application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C.,

Therefore, after going through the impugned order and the factual matrix of the entire case and the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, in the opinion of this Court, the application u/s 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 was rightly allowed by the learned Trial Court and also rightly directed the parties to maintain status quo in respect of the suit property. There is no error of jurisdiction in the impugned order that may call for any interference in exercise of its revisional jurisdiction by this Court. The cases cited by the learned counsel for the applicant are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The revision petition is devoid of merit and the same is hereby dismissed. No order as to costs.