IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CWJC No.11810 of 2010
1. DEVENDRA PRASAD GUPTA S/O LATE KAMTA PRASAD R/O VILL.- MAHKAR,
AMARUT, P.S.- DOBHI, DISTT.- GAYA
Versus
1. RAM NARESH YADAV S/O BALESHWAR YADAV R/O VILL.- ANGARA TOLA,
GAMHARIA, P.S.- DOBHI, DISTT.- GAYA
2. MANOJ KUMAR S/O BALESHWAR YADAV R/O VILL.- ANGARA TOLA, GAMHARIA,
P.S.- DOBHI, DISTT.- GAYA
3. MUNNA KUMAR S/O BALESHWAR YADAV R/O VILL.- ANGARA TOLA, GAMHARIA,
P.S.- DOBHI, DISTT.- GAYA
4. SURESH KUMAR S/O BALESHWAR YADAV R/O VILL.- ANGARA TOLA, GAMHARIA,
P.S.- DOBHI, DISTT.- GAYA
5. KRISHNA MURARI YADAV S/O BALESHWAR YADAV R/O VILL.- ANGARA TOLA,
GAMHARIA, P.S.- DOBHI, DISTT.- GAYA
6. PARSHURAM YADAV S/O BALESHWAR YADAV R/O VILL.- ANGARA TOLA,
GAMHARIA, P.S.- DOBHI, DISTT.- GAYA
7. KAPIL DEO SINGH S/O LATE RAM DAS SINGH R/O VILL.- SEWAI CHAK,
AMARUT, P.S.- DOBHI, DISTT.- GAYA
8. AMARESH SINGH S/O LATE RAM DAS SINGH R/O VILL.- SEWAI CHAK, AMARUT,
P.S.- DOBHI, DISTT.- GAYA
-----------
2. 10.02.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 1.5.2010 passed
by the Sub Judge IV, Gaya in Misc. Case No. 9 of 2005 allowing the
same and setting aside the ex parte order in Title Suit No. 15 of 2004/
264 of 2000 in exercise of powers under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
Learned Counsel submits that the impugned order was not in
consonance with law inasmuch as notices were were deemed to have
been served upon the opposite parties upon refusal of acceptance and
that the service was sufficiently proved by the petitioner during trial
when the Peon of the Nazarat and the Postal Peon were also
examined.
It is however fairly acknowledged on the part of the petitioner
that the suit has been brought for declaration as null and void of the
sale deed in favour of the private respondents when the petitioner
acknowledges to be in possession of the land.
If the petitioner is already in possession of the lands, this Court
is not persuaded to interfere with the order under Order IX Rule 13 CPC
which otherwise appears to be reasonable to the satisfaction of the
Court for the need to be complied with on the principles of natural
justice.
But keeping in mind that the exparte decree was passed on
27.5.2005 and there was material to suggest service upon refusal of
acceptance, the suit is directed to be heard on a day to day basis and
concluded preferably within a period of six-eight months without
granting any frivolous and unnecessary adjournments to either party.
The writ application stands disposed.
Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)