Jharkhand High Court
Mrs Asha Gupta And Anr vs Mr Nand Lal Barnwal And Ors on 13 March, 2015
Author: P.P. Bhatt
Bench: P.P. Bhatt
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Civil Review No. 59 of 2013
1. Mrs. Asha Gupta, wife of Baldeo Prasad Gupta, d/o Late Banwari Lal Gupta.
2. Baldeo Prasad Gupta, son of Late Shambhu Prasad Gupta/ Lal,
Presently both stay at Patna, 105-B, Maha Laxmi Apartment, East Boring Canal
Road, Patna, PO-Patna, PS & District- Patna (Bihar) ..Petitioners
Versus
1.(a) Mr. Nand Lal Barnwal (b) S.K. Barnwal, both s/o Late Kamala Devi (Mother) & Late
Arjun Lal Barnwal (Father) & their heirs & relatives.
2. Mrs. Geeta Devi, W/o Mr. Chandra Bhusan Barnwal and her heirs & relatives.
3. Mr. Aatma Ram Singh, S/o not known & his heirs & concerned relatives. Addresses (1
to 3) Near Chas Gurudwara Jodhadih More, PO & PS Chas, Bokaro PO Chas, PS Chas,
Dist. Bokaro ..Opposite Parties
Coram: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.P. BHATT
--------
For the Petitioners : Mr. Baldeo Prasad Gupta, in person.
For the Opp. Parties :
12/13.03.2015: Present civil review application has been filed under Section 114 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, inter alia, praying for review of the order dated 11.7.2013 passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 49 of 2010.
Heard Mr. Baldeo Prasad Gupta, son of Late Shambhu Prasad Gupta/ Lal, who appeared in person and perused the review application as well as other materials placed on record.
Party-in-person submitted that Civil Revision Petition No. 49 of 2010 was preferred against the ex-parte judgment and decree passed in T.S. No. 12/99, which was filed for specific performance of contract. According to party-in-person, he came to know about ex-parte decree passed against him subsequently, when police authorities informed him at the time of execution. Prior to that, party-in-person had no information about filing of such suit. It is further submitted that in a civil revision filed before this Court, petitioners are having good case on merit and while disposing of the Civil Revision Petition No. 49 of 2010, they could not place certain important facts as well as question of law before this Court, which goes to the roots of the case filed before the learned court-below, wherein ex- parte decree has been obtained fraudulently by the plaintiff, keeping the petitioners in dark. Legality and validity of the agreement, in question, was the subject matter of the suit, for which enforcement was sought for, is required to be examined on merit in civil revision petition. According to party- in-person, the learned court-below, was not having jurisdiction to pass such a decree, as the so-called agreement, for which enforcement was sought for, was not executed within the territorial jurisdiction of the court. It is submitted that the said document was executed at Patna and the defendants were also residing at Patna; however, learned court-below has not taken into consideration the question of jurisdiction before entertaining the suit, which was barred by jurisdiction. According to party-in-person, they are having good case on merit in Civil Revision Petition No. 49 of 2010. Therefore, it is prayed that review petition may be allowed and order passed in Civil Revision No. 49 of 2010 may be reviewed.
Other side though validly served, but, have not remain present and filed any reply controverting the statements and averments made in the review application. Thus, averments made in review application and submissions made by the party-in-person remain uncontroverted and unchallenged.
Having regard to the submissions made by party-in-
person and on perusal of the order passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 49 of 2010 as well as other materials placed on record, it appears that question of jurisdiction needs to be examined. Whether the agreement for which enforcement was sought for in the learned court-below was barred by jurisdiction or not requires consideration in Civil Revision No. 49 of 2010 . Therefore , this Court is of the view that order dated 11.7.2013, passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 49 of 2010 requires reconsideration, considering the scope of review under the Code of Civil Procedure in the interest of justice.
Accordingly, instant civil review application is allowed. Order dated 11.7.2013, passed in Civil Revision Petition No. 49 of 2010 is hereby ordered to be recalled and Civil Revision Petition No. 49 of 2010 is ordered to be heard on merit.
Put up Civil Revision Petition No. 49 of 2010 on 10th April, 2015.
(P.P. Bhatt, J.) S.B.