[2025:RJ-JP:24007] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 244/2023 1. Gopi Bhaat S/o Late Shri Anna, R/o Village Hathikheda, Ajmer (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives Kailash S/o Late Shri Gopi, Age 47 Yrs, R/o Village Hathikheda, Ajmer. 2. Vishnu S/o Late Shri Gopi, Aged About 41 Years, R/o Village Hathikheda, Ajmer. 3. Smt. Soni W/o Late Shri Gopi, Aged About 70 Years, R/o Village Hathikheda, Ajmer. ----Petitioners-Plaintiffs-Non-Applicants Versus 1. Nemichand S/o Late Shri Mangu, R/o H. No. 386/4, Mariya House, Behind Revenue Board, Civil Lines, Ajmer (Deceased) Through Legal Representatives. Smt. Prem Bhatt W/o Late Shri Nemichand, Age 57 Yrs. 2. Miss Ankita Bhatt D/o Late Shri Nemichand, Aged About 32 Years, R/o H. No. 383/4, Behind Revenue Board, Civil Lines, Ajmer 3. Abhimanya Bhatt S/o Late Shri Nemichand, Aged About 35 Years, R/o H. No. 383/4, Behind Revenue Board, Civil Lines, Ajmer ---Respondents-Defendants-Applicants 4. Manoj S/o Late Shri Gopi, Aged About 44 Years, R/o Village Hathikheda, Ajmer. 5. Ashok S/o Late Shri Gopi, Aged About 38 Years, R/o Village Hathikheda, Ajmer. ----Proforma Respondents-Plaintiffs-Non-Applicants For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Agarwal For Respondent(s) : None HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order 01/07/2025 This civil revision petition has been filed by the petitioners- plaintiffs (for short ‘the plaintiffs’) against the order dated [2025:RJ-JP:24007] (2 of 3) [CR-244/2023] 26.07.2023 passed by the Additional Senior Civil Judge No.1, Ajmer in civil misc. case No. 2/2016 (5/2016) whereby the trial Court allowed the application filed by the respondent Nos. 1 to 3- defendants (for short ‘the defendants’) under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC and set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 22.07.2015 passed in civil suit No. 23/2014. Learned counsel for the plaintiffs submits that the trial Court has committed an error in allowing the application filed by the defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC because service of notice upon the original defendant was rightly affected in the civil suit in which he had signed on the summon and received the summon, so there was no occasion for the trial Court to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 22.07.2015. So, the order dated 26.07.2023 passed by the trial Court be set aside. Despite service of notice, no one has put in appearance for the defendants. I have considered the arguments advanced by counsel for the plaintiffs and perused the impugned order. The trial Court while setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 22.07.2015 clearly mentioned that defendant was not residing at Hathikheda. He was residing behind Revenue Board, Civil Lines, Ajmer. Defendant had submitted the documents to prove that he was residing behind Revenue Board, Ajmer and he had not signed the summon in Hindi. So, in my considered opinion, the trial Court has not committed any error in setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 22.07.2015. So, [2025:RJ-JP:24007] (3 of 3) [CR-244/2023] the present revision petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed, which stands dismissed accordingly. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Ritu/69