Alok Sharma, J. - (1.) This misc.appeal has been filed against the order dated 27.11.2013, whereby Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan City, Jaipur has dismissed the Misc. Application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC filed by appellant-defendant No.6-judgment debtor (hereinafter the defendant') against the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 17.01.2011 on the ground that it was filed beyond limitation as the defendant had been unable to make out sufficient cause for condonation of delay as sought in the accompanying application under section.
(2.) The facts of the case are that the defendant - Sheetal Khandelwal purchased house No.34 Laxman, Colony Shyam Nagar, Jaipur from one Rajiv Joshi s/o. Shri Mahesh Joshi on 20.01.2006 by way of a registered sale-deed and took possession thereof. Thereafter on 30.01.2006 the defendant was forcibly dispossessed from the house in issue and was locked out by the respondent-plaintiff decree holder Rajasthan Financial Corporation (hereinafter the plaintiff') by resort to Section 29 of the Rajasthan State Financial Act, 1951 (Act of 1951) as the house in issue was stated to be under equitable mortgage with the plaintiff.
(3.) RFC as plaintiff filed a suit before the District Judge, Jaipur for cancellation of the registered sale-deed dated 20.01.2006 by which the defendant had purchased the suit property from Rajiv Joshi. The suit was numbered 140/2009 on transfer to Additional District Judge No.8, Jaipur Metropolitan, Jaipur. In the said suit, the defendant was served and duly represented by his advocate Mr.Ram and more was filed. Issues were framed on 25.03.2009. The matter was kept for plaintiff's evidence on 23.05.2009. Thereafter it appears that on several dates, the plaintiff did not file its affidavit in evidence. Even on 27.07.2010 plaintiff's affidavit in evidence was not filed, yet owing to the defendant remaining unrepresented on the said date ex parte proceedings were drawn against him. It appears that defendant thereafter continued to be ex-parte on about four occasions even during which the plaintiff's affidavit in evidence was not filed. On 17.01.2011, the plaintiff filed his affidavit in evidence. Arguments were heard and ex-parte decree was passed on the same day.;