[2025:RJ-JP:25938] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Revision Petition No. 35/2025 Mool Chand Meena S/o Late Hazari Lal Meena, Aged About 50 Years, Resident Of Village Natata, Tehseel-Jamwaramgarh, District-Jaipur (Raj.). ----Petitioner Versus 1. Smt. Dhanni Devi W/o Late Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Aged About 55 Years, Resident Of Village Natata, Tehseel- Jamwaramgarh, District-Jaipur (Raj.) At Present-Village- Dantli (Saroli), Dhani-Sankhla Ki, Tehsil-Sanganer, District-Jaipur (Raj.). 2. Rajesh S/o Late Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Aged About 20 Years, Resident Of Village Natata, Tehseel- Jamwaramgarh, District-Jaipur (Raj.) At Present-Village- Dantli (Saroli), Dhani-Sankhla Ki, Tehsil-Sanganer, District-Jaipur (Raj.). 3. Heera Devi D/o Late Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Aged About 30 Years, Resident Of Village Natata, Tehseel- Jamwaramgarh, District-Jaipur (Raj.) At Present-Village- Dantli (Saroli), Dhani-Sankhla Ki, Tehsil-Sanganer, District-Jaipur (Raj.). 4. Khelanti D/o Late Shri Ram Dahn Meena, Aged About 25 Years, Resident Of Village Natata, Tehseel- Jamwaramgarh, District-Jaipur (Raj.) At Present-Village- Dantli (Saroli), Dhani-Sankhla Ki, Tehsil-Sanganer, District-Jaipur (Raj.). 5. Keshantaa Alias Foranti D/o Late Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Aged About 27 Years, Resident Of Village Natata, Tehseel- Jamwaramgarh, District-Jaipur (Raj.) At Present-Village- Dantli (Saroli), Dhani-Sankhla Ki, Tehsil-Sanganer, District-Jaipur (Raj.). 6. Pooja D/o Late Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Aged About 22 Years, Resident Of Village Natata, Tehseel- Jamwaramgarh, District-Jaipur (Raj.) At Present-Village- Dantli (Saroli), Dhani-Sankhla Ki, Tehsil-Sanganer, District-Jaipur (Raj.). 7. Ganga D/o Late Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Aged About 23 Years, Resident Of Village Natata, Tehseel- [2025:RJ-JP:25938] (2 of 5) [CR-35/2025] Jamwaramgarh, District-Jaipur (Raj.) At Present-Village- Dantli (Saroli), Dhani-Sankhla Ki, Tehsil-Sanganer, District-Jaipur (Raj.). 8. Arawali Meena Alias Rahul D/o Late Shri Ram Dhan Meena, Aged About 21 Years, Resident Of Village Natata, Tehseel-Jamwaramgarh, District-Jaipur (Raj.) At Present- Village-Dantli (Saroli), Dhani-Sankhla Ki, Tehsil-Sanganer, District-Jaipur (Raj.). ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Ms. Manju Garg, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Kamal Kumar Gupta, Adv. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Judgment DATE OF JUDGMENT 14 /07/2025 This Civil Revision Petition has been filed by the petitioner- plaintiff-non applicant (for short ‘the non-applicant’) against the order dated 09.05.2024 passed by District Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur in Civil Misc. Application No.53/2022, whereby said court allowed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the respondents-defendants-applicants (for short ‘the applicants), set aside the ex-parte proceedings and quashed the ex-parte judgment dated 26.04.2017. Learned counsel for the non-applicant submits that the non- applicant filed a suit for specific performance of the contract and permanent injunction against the applicants in which despite service of summon, applicants did not appear and resultantly, ex- parte proceedings were initiated against them and after ex-parte evidence, trial court vide order dated 26.04.2017 decreed the non-applicant’s suit ex-parte. [2025:RJ-JP:25938] (3 of 5) [CR-35/2025] Learned counsel for the non-applicant also submits that the applicants filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC before the trial court on 12.09.2022. The trial court vide order dated 09.05.2024 set aside the ex-parte judgment dated 26.04.2017. Learned counsel for the non-applicant also submits that trial court had committed error in setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated 26.04.2017 because after service of summon, applicants did not appear before the trial court. So, ex-parte proceedings were initiated against them on 18.03.2009 and suit was decreed ex- parte on 26.04.2017. Learned counsel for the non-applicant also submits that the non-applicant filed execution petition before the executing court in the year 2017. The applicants appeared before the Court and talks of compromise were going on between the parties. On 08.02.2020, they very-well knew regarding ex-parte judgment and decree but they had filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree on 12.09.2022. They had not shown any bona-fide reason for filing the said application after an inordinate delay. So, trial court had committed error in setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. So, order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the trial court be set aside. Learned counsel for the non-applicant has placed reliance upon the following judgments :(1) Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs & Ors. Vs. The Special Deputy Collector (LA) reported in (2024) 4 SCR 241 and (2) Sweety Gupta Vs. Neety Gupta in FAO (OS) No.108/2016 decided on 24.10.2016. [2025:RJ-JP:25938] (4 of 5) [CR-35/2025] Learned counsel for the applicants has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the non-applicant and submits that service of the summon on the applicants was not proper, Dhanni Devi is a widow having a 7 children and due to illiteracy, she is doing labour work. So, she could not appear before the trial court. So, trial court rightly set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. So, present petition filed by the non- applicant being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the non-applicant as well as learned counsel for the applicants. It is an admitted position that after service of summon, applicants did not appear before the trial court, so the trial court initiated the ex-parte proceedings against the applicants on 18.03.2009 and ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 26.04.2017. The non-applicant filed execution petition in which applicants appeared through their Advocate on 02.02.2018 and talks of compromise were going on between them but the applicants filed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC on 12.09.2022 after an inordinate delay. They have not shown any bona-fide cause for such delay, although, they appeared before the executing court in execution proceedings. So, in my considered opinion, trial court has committed error in setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree. So, order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the trial court deserves to be set aside. [2025:RJ-JP:25938] (5 of 5) [CR-35/2025] The Civil Revision Petition filed by the non-applicant is allowed. The order dated 09.05.2024 passed by the trial court is set aside. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J Jatin /98