Manoj Kumar Gupta, J. - (1.) Original Suit No. 509 of 2009 instituted by the petitioner against the defendant respondents and certain other persons, was decreed ex parte on 1 May 2012. The defendants were restrained from dispossessing the petitioner from the suit property and sale deed dated 14 October 2009 was declared as null and void and direction was issued to inform the Sub-Registrar, Bhadohi about the said fact. Thereafter, some of the defendants filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree. The application was allowed by the trial court by order dated 24 February 2014 and the ex parte decree dated 1 May 2012 has been set-aside and the suit has been restored to its original number.
(2.) It seems that the ex parte decree was implemented on 26 May 2012 in the records of Sub-Registrar, by making an endorsement in regard to the sale deed having been declared as null and void. One of the defendants namely Amrit Lal (respondent No. 2) filed an application 72 Ga praying that the order passed by the trial Court dated 24 February 2014 by which ex parte decree has been set-aside, be communicated to the Sub-Registrar, so that the endorsement made in the records could be cancelled. The application has been allowed by the trial Court by order dated 2 February 2015, however, with the rider that the sale deed will remain in suspended animation during the pendency of the proceedings of the suit.
(3.) Aggrieved by the aforesaid order, some of the defendant respondents preferred Revision No. 7 of 2015, which has been allowed by order dated 7 September 2015 passed by the District Judge, Bhadohi at Gyanpur. The Revisional Court has held that once the ex parte decree has been set-aside and the application 72 Ga has been allowed by the trial Court, there is no provision of law under which the sale deed impugned in the suit could be kept in suspended animation.;