High CourtsSingle Bench(2001) 09 RAJ CK 0093

Smt. Saroj vs Gaya Prasad Sharma

Rajasthan High Court · Decided on 15 September 2001 · Citation: (2002) 3 RCR(Civil) 782 : (2002) 2 RLW 1061 : (2002) 5 WLC 760 : (2002) 5 WLN 525

HON’BLE JUDGES
Gyan Sudha Mishra, J
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Revision Petition No. 1058 of 2001

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

2 paragraphs · 338 words

Misra, J.—A suit for eviction was filed against the defendant/petitioner by the plaintiff-respondent, which was dismissed exparte against which the defendant/petitioner filed an application for setting aside the exparte decree under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Civil Procedure Code. The same was dismissed by the trial Court vide its judgment order dated 12.1.2000 and the appeal against the same was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge No.2, Jaipur City, Jaipur. On perusal of the same it is sufficiently apparent that the petitioner who is a tenant in the suit premises deliberately avoided to appear in the suit on several occasions and thus, committed default not only on one occasion, but numerous occasions ever since 1999 upto the year 2000 without any sufficient or just cause.

2.

Assailing the aforesaid orders, it was submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a party to the suit should not be made to suffer on account of default committed by his/her advocate. It is no doubt true that this is a sound and just proposition of law, but this cannot be construed as a sheet anchor so as to grant an advantage to a party to drag on the litigation and get it converted into a protracted litigation without any just cause. From the evidence discussed in the impugned orders of the Courts below, it is apparent that from 14.10.99 upto 2.5.2000 numerous opportunities were granted to the defendant/petitioner and is advocate to contest her case and yet on the pretext on the other, she failed to contest the suit. Finally, when the suit was dismissed exparte, she was prompt enough to file an application for setting aside the exparte decree thereby enjoying the occupation of the house and has now filed this revision petition on the ground that the impugned orders will result into miscarriage of justice. The plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is absolutely devoid of substance in the circumstances of this case and hence, this revision petition stands dismissed at the admission stage itself.