Jharkhand High Court
Subhash Prasad Srivastava vs Rohit Singh on 7 March, 2022
Author: Kailash Prasad Deo
Bench: Kailash Prasad Deo
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
[Civil Writ Jurisdiction]
W.P.(C) No. 4290 of 2016
Subhash Prasad Srivastava .... .. ... Petitioner(s)
Versus
1.Rohit Singh
2.Jagdish Prasad Singh .. ... ... Respondent(s)
...........
CORAM :HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KAILASH PRASAD DEO (Through :- Video Conferencing) .........
For the Petitioner : Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, Sr. Advocate.
Mr. Devesh Krishna, Advocate
For the respondent(s) : Mr. A. K. Sahani, Advocate.
Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate
......
11/ 07.03.2022. Heard, Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel assisted by Mr. Devesh Krishna, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondent(s) assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Ajit Kumar.
2. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has submitted, that the plaintiff/petitioner has preferred the instant Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the judgment dated 30.06.2016 passed by learned Munsiff, Ranchi, in Misc. Case No.7/2013 whereby and whereunder petition under Order IX, Rule 13 CPC filed by the defendants/ respondents for setting aside ex-parte judgment dated 10.08.1992 [decree signed on 18 th August, 1992] passed in Title Suit No.123/87 has been allowed.
3. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that the petitioner purchased the suit land of R.S. Plot No.490 Chaparbandi marked as sub- plot No.490/B of Khata No.22, Area 10 Kattha situated at Village- Chiraundi, District- Ranchi from one Beni Madhav Mitra through Sale Deed dated 7.10.1963 which was registered on 08.10.1963 for a valuable consideration. Petitioner came in possession and is still in possession. Immediately after purchase, the petitioner constructed boundary wall surrounding the suit land.
4. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that one Ramanad Singh @ Ramji purchased a portion of R.S. Plot No.490, as Sub-Plot No.490/C of Khata No.22 of the same village from Beni Madhav Mitra on 07.10.1963 in the name of his son, Vir Bahadur Singh which is situated adjacent to plot No.490/B purchased by petitioner. He has further submitted that one Indradeo Singh purchased portion of this land marked as 490/A by virtue of registered sale deed dated 08.10.1963. All these sub-plots were demarcated at the spot by means of fixing stone pillars in the ground.
5. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that due to very cordial relation with Ramanand Singh @Ramji, the original copy of Registered Sale deed for sub plot 490 /A was given to him by Late Indrajit Singh for the purpose -2- of Mutation of his name in the revenue record as petitioner has complete faith upon Ramanand Singh @ Ramji Singh. The original copy of registered sale-deed was handed-over to him in the month of June, 1984 to get their names mutated in the office of the State of Bihar and also in the office of the Ranchi Municipal Corporation with respect to aforementioned land. Thereafter, Ramanand Singh @ Ramji on one pretext or other avoided this work and when petitioner asked him to return the documents, he replied that same has been misplaced.
6. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that thereafter petitioner applied for certified copy of the sale deed dated 07.10.1963 and obtained it on 29.08.1985 and subsequently, filed petition before the Circle Officer, Town Anchal, Ranchi, for mutation of his name with respect to the suit land and after due enquiry, Circle Officer passed order for mutation in the name of petitioner and since 1985 onwards, rent receipts are being regularly issued in the name of petitioner for sub plot No.490/B. The name of petitioner was mutated in the Sherista of Government of Bihar, now State of Jharkhand and in Municipal Corporation as Holding No.1/A within ward No.VIIB and paying rents and receiving rent receipts regularly.
7. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that when after such a lapse of time, Ramanand Singh @ Ramji did not return the Original Sale Deed. The petitioner served Legal Notice on 15.12.1986 upon Ramanand Singh @ Ramji through his Lawyer demanding that his Original Sale Deed be returned. The notice was duly served upon him. He has further submitted that earlier in the month of September, 1985, when petitioner went to suit land for its measurement for the purpose of construction of residential house, he was informed by one Haribansh Prasad that the land has been purchased by Jagdish Prasad Singh (Respondent No.2 herein) in name of his son, Rohit Singh (Respondent No.1 herein) and he also came to know that on the same day i.e. 17.12.1984, other sub-plots A & C of main plot 490 belonging to Late Indrajit Singh & Ramanand Singh @ Ramji Singh were purchased by Respondent No.2 in the name of his son- Rahul Singh and his wife- Pratima Singh.
8. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that on enquiring the matter, at the office of the District Sub- Registrar, Ranchi, it revealed that the respondents alongwith Ramanand Singh @ Ramji by playing fraud & misrepresentation, fraudulently got the Sale-Deed registered in their names with respect to the suit land showing that the vendor is petitioner, but petitioner has neither made signature upon the deed nor it contains his thumb impression. Therefore, Respondent no.2 by impersonating Subhash Prasad Srivastava & Late -3- Indrade0 Singh got the deed executed & registered for sub-plot 490/B & 490/A, since original registered sale deed was in the possession of Ramanand Singh @ Ramji Singh.
9. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that the petitioner immediately filed an application on 28.09.1985 in the Registration Office, Ranchi, for obtaining the certified copy of the said fraudulent sale-deed dated 17.12.1984 which was supplied to him on 03.10.1985.
10. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that on getting the address of Jagdish Singh (Respondent No.2) from his men/ caretaker, Late Haribansh Prasad, petitioner went to Singrauli where Respondent No.2 was posted in Coalfields and when petitioner presented him entire facts, he assured him of coming to Ranchi for settlement of matter, but he never turned up.
11. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that petitioner took every steps for settlement of the matter, but when left with no alternative filed Title Suit vide T.S. No.123/87 in the Court of Munsiff at Ranchi for declaration that sale deed dated 17.12.1984 alleged to have been executed by him in favour of Respondent No.1 is forged, fraudulent, void, illegal as not been executed by him and is not binding upon him and right, title & interest of his with respect to the suit land remained unaffected by the sale-deed dated 17.12.84.
12. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that in Title Suit vide T.S. No.123/87, summons and registered notice were issued against all the defendants on 23.12.1987 and on 19.01.1988 , defendant nos.1 & 3 appeared with Vakalatnama and filed a time petition for filing written statement and thereafter, on 08.02.1988, again time was taken for filing written statement. Thereafter, on two consecutive dates, no steps was taken by defendants and again on 13.08.1988 time was taken for filing written statement, which was allowed and thereafter, defendants stopped taking any steps and subsequently matter was posted for ex-parte hearing.
13. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that after completion of all the procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure and on the basis of evidence on record, lawfully and cogently T.S. No.123/87 was decreed in favour of petitioner on 10.08.1992.
14. The respondents on the basis of forged sale-deed got the demand opened in their name in Mutation Case No.469R27 and got their name mutated and immediately, when petitioner came to know about this, he immediately filed appeal vide Mutation Appeal Case No.32(R) /15/02-03 and by the order dated 31.01.2002, DCLR, Ranchi cancelled the mutation of applicants/ Respondents herein by setting aside the order of Circle Officer, Ranchi dated 3.07.01 passed in Mutation Case -4- No.469 R 27 and continued the mutation in the name of petitioner and this order was never challenged by respondents before any competent court of law. Thereafter, entries in register-II, were corrected and correction slip issued showing mutation in respect of suit land in the name of petitioner and Malguzari rent receipts with respect to suit land are regularly being issued in the name of petitioner since, 1985 onwards.
15. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that on 25.08.2012, a proceeding was started by M. K. Das (Power of Attorney holder of respondents) before DCLR, Sadar, Ranchi registered as Misc. Case No.126/12-13 corresponding to T.R. Case No.34/12-13 for the land situated at Khata No.22, Plot No.490/A & 490/C in connection of double demand running in the name of family members of respondents and also in the name of Ram Lakhan Yadav & one Bhuneshwar Sao and the demand running in the name of petitioner was never disputed and this was the reason that after being served with a notice, petitioner appeared and on the basis of his reply, he was discharged.
16. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that after the lapse of almost 21 years or delay of 7527 days on 10.05.2013, Misc. Case No.7/13 was filed by Respondents in the Court of Munsiff, Ranchi under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC for setting aside ex-parte judgment dated 10.08.1992 and decree signed on 18.08.1992 in T.S. No.123/87.
17. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that ld. Munsif, Ranchi, dismissed the petition dated 10.05.2013 filed under Order IX, Rule 13 of the CPC in terms of order dated 27.09.2013 on the ground that petition is filed after delay of 7527 days and no cogent and reasonable ground has been given providing day to day explanation for such delay, as required under Section 5 of the Limitation Act.
18. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that the order of dismissal of Misc. Case No.7/13 has been assailed by the defendants/ respondents being the appellants before learned Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi, which was registered as Misc. Appeal No.12/2013.
19. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that in terms of the order dated 01.04.2014 in Misc. Appeal No.12/13, learned Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi remanded the matter to the Court of Munsif, Ranchi to dispose of Misc. Case No.7/13 afresh by providing sufficient opportunity to the respective parties to support their respective cases by leading evidence within a period of 4 months from the date of order and thereafter learned Munsiff vide order dated 30.06.2016 allowed Misc. Case No.7/13 filed by respondents/defendants by setting aside the judgment dated 10.08.1992 [decree signed on 18 th August, 1992] in -5- Title Suit No.123/87.
20. Being aggrieved of the same, plaintiff/ petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.
21. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has assailed the impugned order on the ground that the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was not maintainable and no issue was framed so as to give a clear-cut finding that judgment dated 10th August, 1992 (Decree signed on 18 th August, 1992) passed by learned Trial Court in Title Suit No.123/87 has been obtained on fraud.
22. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has further submitted, that after 21 years i.e. 7527 days, the delay has been condoned and the learned Court has put the plaintiff in such a situation where he has to contest the case again without any fault on the part of the plaintiff/ petitioner.
23. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel in support of his submission has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ved Pal (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors. vs. Prem Devi (Dead) through Legal Representatives & Ors., reported in 2018 (9) SCC 496 at Para-8 which may profitably be quoted hereunder :-
"8.The purpose in making reference to these two provisions is to show the legislative intent which does not allow the parties to take recourse to these legal remedies to challenge the compromise once it is arrived at in the suit/ appeal. The only execution being if the challenge is founded on the ground of fraud committed by the parties in obtaining any judicial orders, the suit, in appropriate case, may lie."
24. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel in support of his submission has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Shanti Devi and Ors., vs. Kaushaliya Devi, reported in 2016 (16) SCC 565 and has submitted that the Court should not have condoned such delay of 21 years i.e. 7527 days without any specific reason explaining day to day delay.
25. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel in support of his submission has further placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Sahid and Ors., vs. Raziya Khanam (Dead) through Legal Representatives and Ors., reported in 2019 (11) SCC 384 at Para-17 which may profitably be quoted hereunder :-
"17.The averments in the application that the appellants got knowledge about the judgment in Suit No.591 of 1979 dated 10-05-2012 only on 06-05-2013 through a constable is incorrect. On behalf of the respondents, it is stated that in the proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, the appellants filed the application on 23-11-2012 (Objection Paper No.23C2) wherein the judgment dated 10-05-2012 of the civil court was mentioned and it was even averred that the said judgment was passed wrongly. It is thus clear that the appellants had knowledge about the judgment and decree in Suit No.591 of -6- 1979 even on 23-11-2002. While so, the appellant-defendants have filed application with incorrect averments that they got knowledge about the judgment and decree only on 6-5-2013 at Tehsil Ghosi when constable of the police station gave them the information. The High Court rightly rejected the contention of the appellants that they came to know about the judgment dated 10-05-2012 in Suit No.591 of 1979 only on 6-5-2013 through a constable of police station in Tehsil Ghosi, District Mau when he had gone there to pairvi in another case."
26. Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned Senior counsel has thus, submitted that the order- sheet whereby it has been recorded by the learned Munsiff, Ranchi, in Title Suit No.123/1987 shows that defendant nos.1 and 2 have already appeared through Bande Bihari Lal, a Power-Attorney Holder through his lawyer, as such, the same will prevail and defendant(s)/respondent(s) cannot take advantage of filing Misc. Case under Order IX Rule 13 CPC which is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case.
27. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondents assisted by learned counsel, Mr. Ajit Kumar has opposed the prayer and submitted that from bare perusal of judgment dated dated 10 th August, 1992 (Decree signed on 18 th August, 1992) in Title Suit No.123/1987, it is apparent that final judgment in Title Suit No.123/1987 has been passed ex-parte, as the court has clearly mentioned at internal page-6 of the judgment of trial court that the judgment is being ex-parte, as such, for setting aside the judgment passed as ex-parte, there are provisions under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.
28. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has further submitted that much hue and cry has been made by the plaintiff/ petitioner not to set aside the judgment which has been obtained on fraud being an ex-parte on the ground that it is not maintainable, although fraud has been committed before the learned court below as no notice has been served upon the defendants/respondents nor they have appeared in the court below by filing any vakalatnama or authorizing any person through Power of Attorney in favour of one Bande Bihari Lal, as such, the learned court below has rightly set aside the judgment which was obtained on fraud.
29. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has further submitted that it has rightly been held by the learned Appellate Court in Misc. Appeal 12/2013 that petitioner/ plaintiff has remedy under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
30. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has further submitted that said Bande Bihari Lal is not known to the defendants/ respondents and defendants/ respondents have never been noticed in Title Suit No.123/87. It is only when they went before the Office of Circle Officer for payment of tax in respect of their land then they came to know that jamabandi of the petitioner has been canelled and thereafter enquired into the whole matter and came to know about the ex-parte decree and judgment and only after obtaining copy of the relevant documents, filed -7- an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC which was dismissed in limine against which Misc. Appeal was preferred which was allowed and thereafter Misc. Case was again heard by the learned Munsif which was allowed setting aside the judgment dated 10th August, 1992 (Decree signed on 18 th August, 1992) in Title Suit No.123/1987.
31. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has further submitted that no evidence has been brought on record by the plaintiff/ petitioner in Misc. Case No.7/13 in support of judgment by examining Bande Bihari Lal or the counsel who was appearing for the defendants as the plaintiff/petitioner is fully acquainted with fraud committed upon the learned Trial Court. It was well within the knowledge of the plaintiff/petitioner that if these persons are put in dock for cross- examination, they may disclose the act committed by plaintiff in obtaining such judgment & decree, as such, there may be a criminal case against the plaintiff/petitioner in obtaining such decree by fraudulent manner.
32. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has further submitted that if the plaintiff/ petitioner has faith in his case, he may contest the case in presence of defendants/ respondents and obtain a decree again as they will not seek any unnecessary adjournment rather they will contest the case on each and every date and this Hon'ble Court may consider the delay of 21 years which the plaintiff is agitating before this Court by paying some compensation/cost to the plaintiff/petitioner, but this Court may not allow plaintiff/ petitioner to have possession over the land on the basis of judgment and decree by means of fraud by setting aside the sale-deed in favour of the defendants/ respondents, ex-parte.
33. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the learned Senior counsel for the petitioner are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the present case as the judgment of Shanti Devi (supra) relates with the substitution matter, but in the present case where judgment has been obtained on fraud, everything vitiates and the delay cannot be a ground not to interfere with judgment obtained on fraud.
34. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has further submitted that judgment which has been placed by the petitioner in the case of Md. Shahid (supra), is with regard to condonation of delay of 349 days in preferring the appeal against ex-parte deccree passed by the learned trial court as no sufficient and reasonable cause shown for condonation of delay, but in the present case there was sufficient reasons shown before the learned court below, that how the defendants/ respondents came to knowledge of such judgment, when they went before the sheresta to pay some tax, then they got knowledge that their mutation order has been cancelled by incorporating the name of the plaintiff/ petitioner on the basis of -8- judgment and decree. Soon thereafter the defendants/ respondents obtained the certified copy of the entire document and filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC before the learned court below, as such, delay has already been explained which was found to be satisfactory by the learned court below and the ex-parte judgment passed in Title Suit No.123/1987 has been passed by the learned Munsiff has been set aside in Misc. Case No.7/2013.
35. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has also placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ved Pal (supra) and referred part of Para-8 which says the only exception being if the challenge is founded on the ground of fraud committed by the parties in obtaining any judicial orders, the suit, in appropriate case, may lie.
36. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has thus, submitted that judgment which has been obtained on 10 th August, 1992 (Decree signed on 18th August, 1992) in Title Suit No.123/1987 is a judgment obtained on fraud, as the plaintiff/ petitioner has not examined the lawyer concerned who was appearing on the basis of power of attorney purported to be issued by defendant nos.1 and 2 in the name of Bande Bihari Lal before the court of learned Munsif in Misc. Case No.07/13. As such, this Court may consider the same and allow the parties to adduce evidence in support of their case before the learned trial court so as to have a finding by the learned court below with regard to the sale deed dated 17.12.1984 to be illegal and not binding upon the plaintiff. The plaintiff will get ample opportunity to adduce evidence and if the evidence is adduced, the plaintiff has no threat with regard to the decree after contest, as such, parties may be directed to obtain decree on contest.
37. Upon this, Mr. Rajeeva Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that what prevented the defendants/ respondents from filing a suit under Order IX Rule 13 CPC soon after the order dated 31.01.2002 passed in Dakhilkharij Appeal Wad No.32 R 15/02-03 by DCLR, Sadar, Ranchi and why they have not paid the rent yearly to the State, so that they could have knowledge with regard to the judgment and decree vide judgment dated 10th August, 1992 (Decree signed on 18th August, 1992) in Title Suit No.123/1987.
38. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has further submitted that said appellate order passed by the DCLR is also an ex-parte order as no notice has been served. It has been recorded that it has been pasted, but where it has been pasted that has not been recorded nor it has been recorded that in whose presence the same has been pasted, as such, everything have been done ex-parte by the plaintiff/petitioner.
-9-39. Mr. A. K. Sahani, learned counsel for the respondents/defendants has further submitted that the State of Jharkhand is passing through a phase where the Circle Officers are not doing their primary duty of collecting the rent, as such, this plea is not available to the petitioner that the rent is not being deposited by the respondents/defendants rather it is only when defendants/respondents went to the office to pay the rent, then they came to know that in the jamabandi/ records, name of the defendants/ respondents has been deleted by substituting the name of plaintiff/ petitioner, as such, this order has been completely obtained on the basis of forgery as the plaintiff/ petitioner has failed to explain before this Court that why the lawyer concerned has not been examined and why Bande Bihari Lal who was purported to be power-attorney holder of these defendants/ respondents has not been examined by the plaintiff/ petitioner in support of his case in Misc. Case No.07/2013. As such, this Court may consider the same and pass a necessary order.
40. After hearing learned Senior counsel for the petitioner/ plaintiff and learned counsel for the respondents/defendants and having gone through the materials available on records, it appears that a Title Suit with respect to Sale deed in favour of the defendants/ respondents has been filed. It further appears that notice has not been validly served upon defendants/ respondents and as per the records, it appears that one Bande Bihari Lal purported to be the power of attorney holder of defendants/ respondents has appeared before the court and on the basis of the same, the learned trial court has considered the appearance of the defendants, but subsequently he also did not file any written statement and the judgment was passed ex-parte. Nothing has been brought on record by the plaintiff/petitioner to justify the appearance of defendants/respondents in Title Suit No.123/1987.
41. However, from perusal of judgment and decree vide judgment dated 10 th August, 1992 (Decree signed on 18th August, 1992) passed by learned Munsif, Ranchi in Title Suit No.123/1987, it is not in dispute that such judgment is ex-parte which has specifically been mentioned in internal page-6 of the impugned judgment. Under the aforesaid circumstances, the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree is maintainable which has rightly been held by learned Appellate Court i.e. learned Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi in Misc. Appeal No.12/2013.
42. So far the point of limitation is concerned, this Court do agree that the limitation is one of the valid points, but if the same is within the knowledge of the defendants/ respondents then only the same is to be taken for consideration. The plaintiff/ petitioner has failed to bring on record any document to show that the judgment and decree vide judgment dated 10th August, 1992 (Decree signed on 18th August, 1992) passed by learned Munsif, Ranchi in Title Suit -10- No.123/1987 has been duly transmitted or communicated to the defendants/ respondents when such judgment has been passed ex-parte nor the plaintiff/ petitioner could establish before this Court that the order passed in Mutation Appeal before the DCLR has been communicated to the defendants/respondents as the same is also ex-parte. As per the case of the defendants/ respondents they were working in Coalfield, Singrauli in the State of Madhya Pradesh and they oftenly come to Ranchi where the suit property lies. It is not the case of the plaintiff/petitioner that rents are being collected in the State of Jharkhand by the revenue authorities regularly, as such, it was within the knowledge of the defendants/ respondents that jamabandi has been changed in the year 2002.
43. So far order of DCLR, Sadar, Ranchi, is concerned, it is also an ex-parte. It is never the case of the plaintiff/petitioner that prior to going before the authority to pay tax, there was any occasion for the defendants/ respondents to have knowledge of existence of such ex-parte judgment & decree in Title Suit No.123/1987.
44. This Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, cannot enter into fact finding which has already been considered by the learned Munsiff in Misc. Case No.7/13 preferred against the judgment dated 10 th August, 1992 (Decree signed on 18th August, 1992) passed by learned Munsif, Ranchi in Title Suit No.123/1987 after remand from the Court of learned Judicial Commissioner-IV, Ranchi in Misc. Appeal No.12/2013.
45. This Court has ample experience that in the State of Jharkhand, the Circle officers are not doing their primary duty by collecting rent from the raiyats, as such, defendants/ respondents have no knowledge about the same and soon after having knowledge, they immediately took legal step by obtaining certified copies of all the relevant documents from the learned Munsif in Title Suit No.123/1987 and preferred an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 10.05.2013. As such, this Court has reason to believe that plaintiff/ petitioner will not be prejudiced if the ex-parte judgment dated 10th August, 1992 (Decree signed on 18 th August, 1992) passed by learned Munsif, Ranchi in Title Suit No.123/1987 is set aside, as it appears to this Court that the same has been obtained by fraud. However, this Court is of the considered view that one opportunity may be given to the defendants /respondents to defend their sale-deed(s) which is their prime right at a cost of Rs.50,000/- to be paid to the petitioner/ plaintiff within one month from today before the learned Trial Court i.e. Munsif, Ranchi in Title Suit No.123/1987.
46. This Court is conscious of the fact that there is a gap of long 21 years i.e. 7527 days, but for that a rightful claim of a person cannot be snatched away in fraudulent manner, for which, this compensation is being paid with a condition to the -11- defendants/ respondents that within one month thereafter they will file their written statement and they will not seek any unnecessary adjournment in the case rather the trial court shall frame the issue within a period of two months thereafter and allow the plaintiff to adduce evidence within a period of further four months and defendants/respondents shall also adduce evidence in three months thereafter and the learned trial court shall pass order on contest in accordance with law.
47. As such, this Court does not find any merit to interfere with the judgment dated 30.06.2016 passed by learned Munsiff, Ranchi, in connection with Misc. Case No.7/2013 and accordingly the instant Writ Petition stands dismissed with aforesaid directions.
48. Let a copy of this order be communicated through FAX to the concerned Trial Court at once.
49. Pending I.As., if any stands closed.
(Kailash Prasad Deo, J.) Sandeep/