Rajasthan High Court – Jodhpur
Gavara Devi vs Bikaner Golden Transport … on 16 September, 2008
1
S.B. CIVIL FIRST APPEAL NO.240/2002
Gavara Devi
Vs.
Bikaner Golden Transport company & Ors.
Date of Order :: 16th September 2008.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH MAHESHWARI
Mr.Arvind Samdariya, for the appellant.
....
Learned counsel for the appellant pleads no
instructions.
The matter having been listed in default category for
process fees and notices in relation to the sole respondent
having not been filed since long, it was considered appropriate
to examine the record before considering whether notices be
issued to the appellant or not.
This appeal, though registered as a regular first appeal
under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), has in
fact been filed against the order dated 10.10.2002 as passed
by the Additional District Judge No.1, Bikaner while rejecting
after adjudication an objection petition (registered as Misc.
Case No.32/2002) as filed by the appellant purportedly under
Order XXI Rules 97 and 35 CPC in relation to the recovery of
possession of immoveable property in Execution Case No.
15/1998.
This appeal was presented on a court fees of Rs.10/-
and with the note on valuation that the objection petition was
2
not valued. While reporting on the matter, the office raised the
objections that the copy of decree has not been filed and
valuation has not been mentioned.
The matter was listed before the Court from the defects
side on 29.10.2002. While waiving the office objection, this
Court ordered issuance of notice of appeal to the respondents.
However, the matter was also considered by this Court on the
prayer for interim relief and the same was declined after taking
into comprehension the relevant facts and the background of
the case with the following order:-
"Office objection is waived. Issue notice of
the appeal to the respondents.
Heard the learned counsel for the
appellant on the question of stay. From the order
of the learned Additional District Judge No.1,
Bikaner, it is apparent that the decree in respect
of disputed land was passed more than 20 years
ago and still the decree-holder has not
succeeded to get the possession of the property.
Earlier one Jethi Devi came as an objector
with the contention that she was in possession of
the property for the last 50 years. The objection
petition, after enquiry, was dismissed on
22.11.2001. Thereafter, on 6.8.2002 when the
bailiff of the court went with the decree-holder for
delivery of possession, the person present
refused to deliver the possession and it was
reported to the court that Smt. Jethi Devi was not
prepared to part with possession and hence, in
order to maintain peace at the time of the
delivery of possession, help of a lady police
constable may be provided. This time the
appellant Smt. Gavara Devi came with a story
that she was in possession of the disputed
property for the last more than 20 years and the
property was used by her for the upkeep of the
cows and their offsprings. The petitioner
examined herself and one Rajeshwari Devi in
3
support of her story. In rebuttal, Harbans Lal was
examined on behalf of the decree-holder. The
court heard the arguments and disbelieved the
story of the appellant. The court found that earlier
Jethi Devi used to object on the ground that her
possession was 50 years old. After her petition
was dismissed Gavara Devi surfaced and came
with a story that she was in possession for the
last 20 years. Learned court found that the
property was in active litigation for the last 30
years and the contention of Gavara Devi that she
was having peacefully possession for 20 years
was unacceptable. The contention raised by the
appellant was to the effect that adjacent to the
disputed property, her house which she
purchased in 1994, is situate in the West. The
contention was to the effect that a gate of the
said house opened on the disputed property
through which the objector was using the
property. Needless to say that the house was
purchased by Gavara Devi in the year 1994 and
this purchase itself is not 20 years old.
After going through the judgment of the
trial court, I find no good ground to grant any stay
in favour of the appellant. The stay application is,
therefore, dismissed."
Thereafter, the respondent No.2 was reported to have
expired and the appellant was exempted from the necessity of
bringing on record his legal representatives; and, on
26.08.2005, this appeal was ordered to be admitted for nobody
having appeared on behalf of the respondent No.1 despite
service.
After admission, notices were again sent to the
respondent No. 1 that were received unserved, as reported on
06.02.2006. Thereafter, fresh notices were issued on
07.02.2007 and they were also received unserved, as reported
on 09.07.2007. Ever since then, process fees and notices for
4
service on the respondent have not been filed despite
repeated listing of the matter before the Deputy Registrar
(Judicial) and the Registrar (Adm.); and now, when the case is
listed in the Court in default category, learned counsel has
pleaded no instructions.
Although this appeal has been registered as civil regular
first appeal but it relates to the order passed in rejection of the
objections as raised in execution proceedings; and hence, this
appeal is essentially an execution first appeal. As noticed by
the Trial Court and by this Court, there is not even a
semblance of right available with the appellant to raise
objections or to resist delivery of possession in the related
execution proceedings.
Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances,
and for want of merits in the case as already noticed in the
order dated 29.10.2002, and for the appellant having failed to
take requisite steps for prosecution of this appeal any further,
it does not appear appropriate to issue notice to the appellant
and to keep this appeal pending.
For all the reasons aforesaid, this Court is clearly of the
view that this appeal deserves to be dismissed for want of
prosecution.
The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.
s.soni (DINESH MAHESHWARI), J.