[2025:RJ-JP:2151] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 212/2024 Smt. Premvati @ Premdevi W/o Geetram, Aged About 56 Years, R/o Addhanpur, Subtehsil- Maniya, Tehsil And District - Dholpur, Rajasthan. ----Petitioner Versus 1. Hazari @ Khaju S/o Balbhadra, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Amarpura Mazra Ladukheda, Teshsil-Kheragarh, District - Agra (U.p) Presently R/o Saraswati Kunj, C.o.d Road, Agra (U.p) 2. Jaggu S/o Balbhadra, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Amarpura Mazra Ladukheda, Teshsil-Kheragarh, District -Agra (U.p) Presently R/o Saraswati Kunj, C.o.d Road, Agra (U.p) 3. State Of Rajasthan Through Tehsildar Sahib, Dholpur As A Land Holder. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Dileep Singh Jadaun. For Respondent(s) : None. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Judgment / Order 13/01/2025 1. Instant revision petition is preferred by petitioner-plaintiff aggrieved from order dated 30.05.2024 in Civil Misc. Case No.2/2020 passed by learned Senior Civil Judge, Dholpur in an application under Order IX Rule 13 and Order V Rule 20 read with Section 151 of CPC, whereby a judgment & decree dated 21.01.2016 in Civil Suit No. 32/2014 was set aside. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner-plaintiff has filed a suit for specific performance on 23.12.2014 before learned Senior Civil Judge, Dholpur and after [2025:RJ-JP:2151] (2 of 4) [CR-212/2024] effecting service upon respondent nos.1 and 2, an exparte proceeding was initiated against them and on 21.01.2016 an exparte decree was passed. He also submitted that after delay of several years an application under Order IX Rule 13 and Order V Rule 20 read with Section 151 CPC was filed before the trial court and ultimately the judgment and decree dated 21.01.2016 was set aside. He further submitted that the respondent nos.1 and 2 remained absent despite proper service of notice and at the time of file of application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC they have deliberately mentioned their address of Agra. He also submitted that the respondent nos.1 and 2 have avoided service of notice and ultimately the service was effected by publication under Order V Rule 20 of CPC. He further referred the material placed on record and submitted that the application for setting aside exparte decree was filed after a delay of four years without any application under Section 5 of Limitation Act before the trial court. He also referred the litigation between the parties filed by respondent nos.1 and 2 wherein same address as mentioned in plaint was mentioned by the respondents nos.1 and 2. He also referred the material placed on record and submitted that learned trial court has ignored the provision of law while setting aside exparte decree dated 21.01.2016. 3. Despite service upon respondents nos.1 and 2, no one appeared on behalf of respondents nos.1 and 2 whereas respondent no.3 is a formal party. 4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the material placed on record. [2025:RJ-JP:2151] (3 of 4) [CR-212/2024] 5. The petitioner-plaintiff has filed a civil suit for specific performance on basis of agreement to sale dated 15.11.2011/17.11.2011 executed by Babulal who expired on 07.04.2012. As per statement in plaint, Babulal has expired issueless and respondent nos.1 and 2 inherited the property left by Late Shri Babulal. The respondent nos.1 and 2 are sons and sister of Babulal. According to statement in plaint Babulal has agreed to sale his share 3555/28440 area 24.375 biswa in khasra no.879 rakba 5 biswa and khasra no.880 rakba 9 bigha 10 biswa, Village Mehmadpur, Tehsil Dholpur. The plaintiff has filed civil suit after service of notice upon defendant nos.1 and 2. 6. The trial court has ordered exparte proceeding against defendant nos.1 and 2 on 24.02.2015 and after recording exparte evidence of plaintiff has decreed the suit of plaintiff against defendant nos.1 and 2. 7. Defendant nos.1 and 2 has filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 and Order V Rule 20 read with Section 151 CPC and this application was allowed after recording evidence. On record, a fact is available that the agreement to sale was not executed by respondent nos.1 and 2, rather the agreement to sale was claimed to be executed by Babulal, who already expired before filing of suit. A perusal further indicate that there were pending litigation between the parties before the revenue courts and in litigation the respondent nos.1 and 2 have mentioned their address of Village Mehmadpur Tehsil, District Dholpur and also Amrupura Majra Ladukhera, Tehsil Kheragarh, District Agra. In vakalatnama filed in suit no.128/2011 pending before SDO, Dholpur, address of Saraswati Kunj, COD Road, Agra (U.P.) was mentioned. After [2025:RJ-JP:2151] (4 of 4) [CR-212/2024] considering the pending litigation before the revenue authorities regarding same piece of land, I am of considered view that the trial court has not committed any error while setting aside exparte judgment and decree dated 21.01.2016. 8. In case of Dwarika Prasad (D) through LRs vs. Prithvi Raj Singh : 2024 INSC 1030, Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering an appeal in matter arising out of setting aside of ex- parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC, ruled that a separate application for condonation of delay is not required when delay was sufficiently/adequately explained in application for setting aside of decree. The application under Order IX Ruyle 13 CPC itself had all the ingredients of the application for condonation of delay in making that application. A procedure is after all handmade of justice. 9. Considering the reasons as assigned by learned trial court, there is no perversity or illegality in the impugned order passed by the trial court. Thus, the revision petition sans merits and liable to be dismissed. 10. In view of aforesaid, the instant revision petition preferred against order dated 30.05.2024 is hereby dismissed. 11. Misc. application, if any, stands disposed of. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J Arun/376