BIRBAL Vs. MAHIPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant Civil Revision is directed against the order dtd. 26/7/2019 whereby application for restoration of MJC No.15/2014, which was an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC and Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, has been dismissed holding that there was no such provision for restoration of the said application, therefore, the application was held to be not maintainable and accordingly, the original application (MJC No.15/2014) also stood dismissed.

(2.) Facts of the case are that the respondents/decree holders had preferred a civil suit No.23-A/2010, which was decided ex-parte on 28/2/2014. So the petitioners moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC on 29/10/2014 to set aside the ex-parte decree on the ground that the summons were not served on them, as they were living separately at Raipur and the plaintiff was aware about the said fact. When he came to know about the said ex-parte decree, he preferred an application along with Sec. 5 application (under the Limitation Act) for condonation of delay, which was registered as MJC No.15/2014. The said MJC No.15/2014 was dismissed for want of prosecution on 14/3/2018. On 16/4/2018, the petitioners had moved an application for restoration of MJC No.15/2014. The said application was initially allowed on 1/5/2019 and MJC No.15/2014 was restored to its original number. However, while considering the original application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 of the CPC and Sec. 5 of the Limitation Act, the earlier order was reviewed and it was observed that there was no such provision for restoration of application which was filed under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 CPC. So without further consideration, the original application was dismissed.

(3.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners at length and perused the record.