1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI C.M.P. No. 54 of 2024 Sanjay Sahu, aged about 45 years, son of late Lala Sahu, resident of village Lower Chutia, P.O. and P.S. Chutia, District-Ranchi …….Petitioner … Versus…. 1. Anita Devi, wife of Sri Mani Sahu, resident of village Lower Chutia, P.O. and P.S. Chutia, District-Ranchi 2. Money Sahu, son of late Lala Sahu 3. Rathni Devi, wife of late Chandru Sahu, All at Sr. Nos. 2 and 3 are residents of Lower Chutia, P.O. and P.S. Chutia, District-Ranchi …… Opposite Parties CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI For the Petitioner : Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : ………. 04/Dated: 27/01/2025 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. This petition has been filed under Article 227 of Constitution of India for quashing of the order dated 30.09.2022 passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Junior Division)-XVIII, Ranchi in Civil Miscellaneous Case No. 26/2017, arising out of Execution Case No. 18/2013 (B), arising out of Title Suit No. 200/2009 whereby the petition filed by the defendant no.1/judgment debtor No.1 under Order IX Rule 13 for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 18.07.2013 and 30.07.2013 passed by Additional Munsif-II, Ranchi in Title Suit No. 200/2009 has been allowed setting aside the judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 200/2009. 3. Mr. Anil Kumar Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that by the impugned order the learned court has been pleased to restore the said suit without considering the limitation as well as abatement and further the date is not fixed for further proceeding in view of that the said order is 2 illegal. 4. From perusal of order of the learned court, it transpires that the decree was ex parte. The contention was made on behalf of the opposite parties that they have come to know about the proceeding seeing the paper publication in execution case and thereafter she contacted her lawyer and appeared in execution case. Thereafter she came to know about the previous judgment and decree passed in Title Suit No. 200/2009. P.W.2 has stated before the learned court that she is illiterate woman has no knowledge of the case and therefore could not appear and put forth her case. She has further stated that Sanjay Sahu is her brother-in-law and said Sanjay Sahu never got the land in question in partition and she has got right over the property by virtue of marriage. 5. It is settled law that mere title is not decisive for deciding the nature of the application. There appears to be no bar as such for filing consolidate application for relief. One under Order XXII Rule 3 and 4 of C.P.C. and another under Order XXII Rule 9 C.P.C. and for condonation of delay under section 5 of Limitation Act. Even if rules of procedure require for filing separate application for separate reliefs, even then there can be no justification for filing three separate applications when the reliefs sought in three applications are connected or when the reliefs sought are dependent upon relief required to be obtained for getting complete relief. 6. By praying for condition of delay and on condonation of delay by the order of the Court, the relief in application under Order XXII Rule 9 CPC can be granted and when above two reliefs are granted, then only relief under Order XXII Rule 3 or Rule 4 CPC can be granted. In a case where the relief of setting aside of abatement has not been specifically claimed, the court may consider the complete application to find out what is the prayer and if case is 3 made out for condonation of delay and for setting aside of abatement of proceedings, the Court may condone the delay, may set aside abatement of the suit/appeal even without specific prayer. 7. Looking into the contention made in the said petition, the learned court has passed the said order. There is no illegality in the order that too against the judgment and decree passed ex parte and by way of imposing cost of Rs. 5,000/-, the said petition was allowed. 8. There is no illegality in the order. Accordingly, this petition is dismissed. 9. The learned court shall proceed in accordance with law by way of providing the dates to the parties. ( Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) Satyarthi/-.