High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 01 RAJ CK 0018

Shiv Chand son of Shri Ramdev Ojha vs State of Rajasthan

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 9 January 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Sandeep Mehta
RESULT
Allowed
CASE NUMBER
3221 of 2008

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

39 paragraphs · 356 words
1.

Heard.

2.

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner herein has

approached this Court for challenging the order Annex.3 dated

21.2.2007 passed by the Additional District Collector II, Jodhpur in

revision petition no.76/2005 directing ex-parte proceedings

against the petitioner so also, the order Annex.7 dated

22.12.2007 whereby, the application filed on behalf of the

pertitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-

parte proceedings was rejected.

3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner urges that the notice of

revision filed by the respondent no.2 for cancellation of patta

issued in favour of the petitioner was never served personally and

thus, the trial Court was totally unjustified in proceeding ex-parte

against the petitioner.

4.

None has put in appearance on behalf of the respondent no.2

despite service.

5.

Mr.Salil Trivedi, learned counsel representing the respondent

no.3 Gram Panchayat vehemently opposes the submissions

advanced by the petitioner''s counsel.

6.

Having considered the arguments advanced at the Bar and

upon going through the material available on record, this Court is

of the firm opinion that the notice of the revision petition was not

personally and properly served upon the petitioner. Attempt of the

process server to effect service of notice by affixing the same on

the very same first opportunity does not appear to be bonafide.

Furthermore, the report of service of notice is not attested by any

witness. Thus, the trial Court while proceeding ex-parte wrongly

observed that the service stood affected on the petitioner. In this

view of the matter, the impugned orders are grossly illegal,

perverse and suffering from error apparent on the face of record

and cannot be sustained even for a moment.

7.

Resultantly, the instant writ petition deserves to be and is

hereby allowed. The impugned orders Annex.3 dated 21.2.2007

and Annex.7 dated 22.12.2007 are hereby struck down and set

aside. The matter is remitted back to the revisional Court who

shall, after providing an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the

parties, consider and decide the revision on merits as per law

within a period of one year form the date of receipt of copy of this

order.