High CourtsSingle Bench(2023) 09 RAJ CK 0047

Ranjeet Ram vs Nirmala Devi

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 15 September 2023

HON’BLE JUDGES
Rekha Borana, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision Petition No. 22 Of 2023

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

8 paragraphs · 360 words

Rekha Borana, J

1.

The present revision petition has been filed against the order dated 19.01.2023 passed by the Additional District Judge No.7, Jodhpur Metro in Civil Misc. Application No.151/2022 (NCV No.407/2022) whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC as filed by the defendant applicant has been allowed.

2.

Vide the said order, the Court has proceeded on to set aside the ex parte decree dated 14.01.2022 passed against the defendant with a finding that the defendant deserves to be granted an opportunity of hearing so that the matter can be decided on its merits.

3.

While deciding so, the Court relied upon the judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of (i) Robin Thapa vs. Rohit Dora, AIR 2019 SC 3225; (ii) Rafiq & Ors. Vs. Munshilal & Ors., (1981) 3 SCR 509 and judgment of this Court in Ram Bahadur vs. Ramesh Goyal, 2020 (1) DNJ (Raj.) 331. The ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the above mentioned judgments is that when an appeal is dismissed for some fault on part of a lawyer, restoration should be ordered and further that a litigation should not be terminated by default, either of the plaintiff or the defendant. The cause of justice requires adjudication on merits. In the case of The Secretary, Department of Horticulture, Chandigarh and Ors. Vs. Raghu Raj; (2008) 13 SCC 395, the Hon'ble Apex Court observed as under:

“28. At the same time, however, when a party engages an advocate who is expected to appear at the time of hearing but fails to so appear, normally, a party should not suffer on account of default or non- appearance of the advocate."

4.

In view of the reasons as given by the Court below and in view of the ratio as laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court this Court does not find any ground to interfere with the order impugned dated 19.01.2023. The revision petition is therefore, dismissed.

5.

However, looking to the fact that the present revision petitioner plaintiff is a senior citizen, the Court below is requested to expedite the proceedings.

6.

Stay petition also stands dismissed.