Prashant Kumar Agarwal, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. The plaintiff -petitioners have preferred this civil revision petition under Sec. 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure against the impugned order dt. 13.10.2010 passed by Additional District Judge No. 2, Deeg (District Bharatpur) in Civil Misc. Case no. 2/2009 whereby the learned Court below by allowing the application filed by the defendant -non -petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has set aside the ex -parte decree dt. 16.7.2008 passed in Civil Suit No. 2/2008.
(2.) BRIEF relevant facts for the disposal of this revision petition are that plaintiff -petitioners filed a suit for specific performance against the defendant -non -petitioner in the Court below which was registered as Civil Suit No. 2/2008. On 31.1.2008 an order was passed by the Court below to proceed ex -parte against the non -petitioner on the ground that he has not appeared before the Court despite the fact that summon has been duly served upon him. Ultimately, an ex -parte judgment and decree was passed on 16.7.2008 in favour of the petitioners and against the non -petitioner. Thereafter, the non -petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside of the ex -parte decree dt. 16.7.2008 in the Court below on 5.1.2009 mainly on the ground that service of summons was not duly effected upon him and the order dt. 31.1.2008 to proceed ex -parte against him and subsequent ex -parte judgment and decree dt. 16.7.2008 were wrongly passed against him. It was also stated by the non -petitioner that the fact of ex -parte decree came into in his knowledge only on 9.12.2008. The petitioners filed reply to that application on 12.2.2009 and both the parties produced oral as well as documentary evidence in support of their respective contentions. Learned Court below after hearing both the parties and considering the material available on record and the relevant legal provisions and the legal position found that service of summons on the non -petitioner is doubtful and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the principle of natural justice demands that opportunity of hearing may be afforded to the non -petitioner. Consequently, the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was allowed by reason of impugned order dt. 13.10.2010 and the ex -parte judgment and decree dt. 16.7.2008 was set aside. It is pertinent to note that a cost or Rs. 1,000/ - was imposed upon the non -petitioner. Feeling dissatisfied with the impugned order, the plaintiff -petitioners are before this Court by way of this civil revision petition. Having considered the submissions made on behalf of the respective parties and also going through the record made available for my perusal as well as the relevant legal provisions and the case law, I am of the view that no material irregularity or jurisdictional illegality has been committed by the Court below by allowing the application filed by the non -petitioner and it cannot also be said that the learned Court below has exercised a jurisdiction not vested in it by law or it has failed to exercise a jurisdiction so vested. The learned Court below after a sufficient appreciation of evidence available on record by a well reasoned order has come to a finding that the service of summons on the non -petitioner is doubtful and, therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case and more particularly looking to the fact that the suit relates to an immovable property, opportunity of hearing must be granted to the non -petitioner. To reach the said finding, the learned Court below also relied upon the legal principles laid down by Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court from time to time. I am also of the view that if the suit is heard afresh, no substantial loss would be caused to the petitioners as they have already been compensated by the Court below by awarding cost of Rs. 1,000/ -. It is well settled that jurisdiction of this Court under Sec. 115 CPC is very limited. Learned counsel for the petitioners failed to show any reason requiring interference by this Court in the impugned order. Consequently, the civil revision petition being merit less is dismissed but without any order as to costs. Stay application also stands dismissed. The record may be sent back immediately to the Court below.;