Vakeela vs Bhopal Singh

Ram Janam Singh, Member.

Smt. Vakeela alias Sinni and others have filed this revision against the order dated 26695 passed by learned Additional Commissioner, Meerut Division.

Revisionist had filed a restoration application before the trial Court against the exparte judgment and decree dated 13892 passed by learned SDC in Gopal Singh versus Gaon Sabha and others. Revisionists claimed that Dharam Singh before his death had executed a saledeed in their favour and by virtue of that saledeed they are the legal representatives of the deceased Dharam Singh hence the restoration application dated 20793 deserves to be allowed and the expane judgment and decree dated 13892 deserve to be set aside. The learned trial Court rejected the restoration application on the ground that the case had been finally decided and no case is pending and hence the application under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC had no relevance in the present context and the said application was rejected under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC. This observation of the learned trial Court was confirmed by the learned Additional Commissioner, Mecrul Division by his order dated 26695. Aggrieved by this second revision is preferred before this Court.

I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and perused the file carefully.

Now the points in consideration are whether restoration application dated 20793 for setting aside the expane, judgment and decree dated 13892 passed by learned SDO is maintainable or not. Under Order IX, Rule 13, CPC and under Order I, Rule 10, CPC the learned trial Court rejected the restoration application on the ground that the suit had been finally disposed of and no case was pending. Had it been otherwise then the restoration application would have been considered. Revisionistapplicant cannot be said to be aggrieved by this order because the expane decree was passed against Dharam Singh and the present revisionists were not parties in that ease passed against them. The observations of both the Courts below are based on fact and law and need no interference.

I, therefore, find no force in the present revision and accordingly it is dismissed.

Revision dismsised.