AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Anjani Kumar, J.—By means of this petition, the petitioner, who had filed restoration application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151. CPC to the effect that the suit, which was decreed ex parte, should be recalled as the petitioner is a necessary party and is in actual possession of the land in dispute. The application under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151, CPC was rejected by the trial court by its order dated 30th June, 1998 on the ground that since the petitioner is not a necessary party, therefore, the application is not maintainable.
Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, petitioner preferred a revision being 86 of 1998 before the Additional Commissioner (Administration) Varanasi, district Varanasi, who maintained the order passed by the trial court and held that as the petitioner is not a necessary party, therefore, he has no right to challenge the decree. Since both the authorities held that petitioner is not a necessary party and the decree passed is not binding on the petitioner, petitioner has no right to challenge the order because decree, which was sought to be set aside under Order IX Rule 13, read with Section 151 Code of Civil Procedure, is not binding on him and also he has not been made a party in the case.
In this view of the matter, the petition deserves to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed. The interim order/orders, if any, stands vacated. However, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs.