BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION LIMITED Vs. KHATANAND ALIAS K ANAND SARAF
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
BHARAT PETROLEUM CORPORATION
KHATANAND ALIAS K.ANAND SARAF
Click here to view full judgement.
(1.) This is an appeal directed
against the order dated 29-10-2002, passed
by learned IIIrd Additional District Judge,
Bilaspur in Miscellaneous Civil Case No. 19/2002,
rejecting an application under Order
XLI Rules 19 and 21 read with Section 151
of the Code of Civil Procedure.
(2.) Facts material for disposal of this appeal are that, the plaintiffs had filed a civil
suit for possession of land bearing Khasra
No. 748/2 area 0.76 acres situated at
Village Tifra, District Bilaspur as also for
recovery of arrears of rent of Rs. 2,175/- and
damages against the defendant M/s. Bharat
Petroleum Corporation Limited, in the Court
of Civil Judge Class-1, Bilaspur. The said
suit was registered as Civil Suit No. 69-A/1998.
The defendant remained ex parte in
the suit. Learned IVth Civil Judge Class-I,
Bilaspur, vide judgment and decree dated
1-12-1998, partly allowed the suit and
passed decree against the defendant for
payment of arrears of rent. Being aggrieved by
the said judgment and decree, the plaintiffs
preferred Civil Appeal No. 7A/1999 in the
Court of District Judge, Bilaspur. The
defendant M/s. Bharat Petroleum Corporation
Limited remained ex parte in the appeal. By
ex parte judgment and decree dated 21-9-1999,
the District Judge, Bilaspur allowed
the appeal and for possession and mesne
profit passed decree in favour of the plaintiffs.
(3.) The defendant M/s. Bharat Petroleum
Corporation Limited filed an application
under Order XLI Rules 19 and 21 read with
Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure
through its Power of Attorney Holder B.
Krishna Murthy for setting aside the ex parte
decree dated 21-9-1999 passed in Civil Appeal
No. 7A/1999 on the ground that it was
not duly served with the notice of appeal and
hence could not appear and contest the
appeal before the Court. The defendant came
to know about the decree on 12-4-2000
when in execution proceedings process
server came to execute the possession warrant.
Therefore, on 15-4-2000, the defendant filed an application for setting aside
the ex parte decree along with a separate
application under Section 5 of the Limitation
Act for condonation of delay. The plaintiffs opposed both the applications not only
on merit but also on their maintainability.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.