[2025:JHHC:12161] 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Civil Revision No.12 of 2024 --------- Suraj Mani Devi @ Sudhimani Devi @ Suraj Mani Deiv, aged about 51 years W/O Rabindra Lal Barnwal, Resident of village- Chatro, P.O. Chatro, P.S. Deori, Dist.-Giridih … … Petitioner Versus 1.Lalu Yadav @ Lalu Kumar Yadav 2.Basu Yadav @ Basudeo Yadav 3.Huro Yadav @ Suresh Yadav all sons of Dhaneshwar Yadav 4.Loki Yadav, S/o Late Laxman Yadav Resident of Village-Lalaiya, P.O.-Chatro, P.S.-Deori, Dist.-Giridih …. Opp. Parties --------- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA ---------- For the Petitioner : Mr. N. K. Sahani, Advocate For the Opp. Parties : Mr. Manoj Kumar Bhagat, Advocate Mr. P. C. Roy, Advocate Mr. Shiv Shankar Jee, Advocate ----------- 05/Dated: 24th April, 2025 I.A. No.4123 of 2024 1. Heard the parties, 2. This interlocutory application has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condoning the delay of 134 days. 3. It has been submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that initially C.M.P. No.1071 of 2023 was filed against the impugned order passed by Civil Judge, Senior Division, Giridih, whereby and whereunder an application under order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C filed on behalf of the opposite party was allowed. Later on it was noticed that C.M.P was not maintainable rather revision has to be filed. Then the petitioner was permitted to withdrawn the said C.M.P. with liberty to approach the appropriate forum. 4. Learned counsel for the opposite parties have no objection for the same. [2025:JHHC:12161] 2 5. Considering the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and caused for delay which is sufficient to explain. I.A. No.4123 of 2024 is allowed and delay in filing this Civil Revision is condoned. Civil Revision No.12 of 2024 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the ex-parte decree was passed against the respondents in Original Suit No.269 of 2018 after valid service of notice to the respondents. The respondents did not appear to context the said suit therefore learned trial court was constrained to pass ex- parte decree in the said original suit. Learned counsel further submits that respondents have not been able to show any valid cause preventing them to appear and context the suit and the cause of delay in filing application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C has also not been explained through any documentary evidence. The Trial Court without considering the genuineness of the application allowed the same subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/- to the petitioner. 3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite parties submits that learned trial court after considering the overall facts of the case and the cause shown by the opposite parties for their non-appearance in the Original Suit No.269 of 2018, has passed the impugned order in the ends of justice and allowed the respondents to context the suit on merit. Learned counsel further submits that there is no illegality or infirmity in the impugned order hence no interference is required in the civil revision and the same is fit to be dismissed. 4. I have gone through the impugned order and after hearing both the sides, it appears that the Title Suit No.269 of 2018 was instituted for declaration of right and interest of the plaintiff (petitioner) in respect of suit property the defendant could not appear in the case while fix for hearing inspite of publication of the notice in the newspaper Praphat Khabar. It appears from the impugned order that the learned trial court has expressed its opinion that the said newspaper was not circulate in the remote area where the defendant [2025:JHHC:12161] 3 was residing, hence he could not know about the proceeding of the suit and also in the ends of justice that both the parties should get the opportunities for proper adjudication of the suit, therefore for the purpose of complete and effective resolution of the dispute between the parties, allowed the application under order IX Rule 13 of the C.P.C subject to payment of cost of Rs.5,000/-. Therefore, the points of argument raised on behalf of the present petitioner does not appear to be sustainable and the suit has to be decided on merits. 5. Accordingly, I am not inclined to interfere in the impugned order and there is no merit in the instant revision petition, accordingly, the same is hereby dismissed. (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) Rohit/-