MAHESH CHANDRA TRIPATHI,J. - (1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioners.
(2.) Petitioners are before this Court assailing the validity of order dated 10.08.2016 passed by Trial Court by which the Misc. Application no.48/1993 moved by the petitioners under Order IX rule 13 of CPC has been rejected as well as the order dated 23.05.2017 passed by Appellate Court in Misc. Appeal no.31 of 2016.
(3.) It appears that the plaintiff-respondent has filed a Civil Suit no.882/1993, for permanent injunction over the land in dispute as well as for setting aside the registered sale deed dated 10.09.1982 and 30.09.1982, which was registered in favour of first petitioner by the father of the plaintiff-respondents. It has been claimed that in the said proceeding, the father of petitioners namely Ramashanker filed written statement on 19.08.1983 wherein objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court below was also taken but the said objection was rejected on 21.01.1988. Admittedly the said order has been assailed by the father of petitioners by preferring Revision before the District Judge, Deoria and the same was also rejected on 03.02.1990. It also appears that both the above said orders have been assailed by the father of the petitioners by preferring Writ Petition no.31304/1990, which was disposed of vide order dated 20.10.2008 but at no point of time in the aforesaid writ petition, any interim order has been accorded in favour of petitioners and thereafter the Court below, in its turn, has proceeded in the matter and finally the ex-parte judgement and decree has been passed on 06.05.1991. Thereafter the first petitioner has moved an application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC for recall of the said order but the same was also rejected by the Court below on 13.12.1991. It is an admitted situation that the said order has never been assailed by the petitioners before the higher forum and as such, the same has attained finality. It has been averred in the Writ Petition that on the wrong advice of an Advocate, the restoration application was again moved by the petitioners on 08.10.1993 along with delay condonation application, which was registered as Misc. Application no.48/1993. Against the said application, objection has also been filed by the plaintiff-respondents and finally the aforesaid application has been rejected by the Trial Court vide order dated 10.08.2016 on the ground of delay and laches. The same has also been assailed in Misc. Appeal No.31/2016, which was also dismissed by the Appellate Court vide order impugned dated 23.05.2017.;