HARIBANSH TIWARI Vs. SONAMATI KUNWAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Misc. Appeal has been filed by the defendants against the order passed in Misc. Case no. 16 of 1992 by the 4th Subordinate Judge, Sasaram, whereby he has rejected the petition of the defendants filed under Order 9 rule 13 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex parte decree passed in Title Suit No. 43 of 1991 by Sri Bharat Jee Mishra, Fourth Subordinate Judge, Rohtas at Sasaram.

(2.) THE plaintiffs had filed the suit for declaration that the sale deed executed by the defendants 6th set in favour of defendants 1st set to defendants 5th set was forged, collusive, invalid, void and inoperative. According to the appellants, who were petitioners in Misc. Case no. 16 of 1992, the Title Suit, which had been decreed ex parte, had been fixed for settlement of issues and hearing on the petition filed for appointment of receiver on 2.11.1992 and without the settlement of the issues the title suit was heard on

(3.) IT was contended by the learned lawyer for the Appellant that it has been held by the Supreme Court in the case of G. P. Srivastava vs. R. K. Raizada and ors. reported in (2000) 3 Supreme Court Cases 54, that in setting aside ex parte decree against the defendant the ground that the defendant was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing must be liberally construed where defence is reasonable and defendant approaches the court for setting aside ex parte decree within statutory period and non -appearance is not mala fide or intentional.