Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

1. This writ petition arises out of proceedings for setting aside ex parte decrees obtained by the contesting opposite parties Nos. 3 to 5.

2. The disputed land is in the nature of a Pokhari (small pond). The contesting opposite parties had filed suits claiming Sirdari right therein which were decreed on 7-9-1962 by the trial Court. It appears that after a lapse of five years, the contesting opposite parties asserted their right based on ex parte decrees and started saying that they would not permit anybody to irrigate their fields from the disputed land which led the petitioner to make enquiries with regard to the claim of the contesting opposite parties and thereafter the petitioner filed an application on 20-9-1967 for setting aside the ex parte decrees dated 7-9-1962. A true copy of the application filed by the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte decree is attached with the writ petition and has been marked as Annexure 'I'. The petitioner had sought the relief of setting aside the ex parte decrees in favour of the contesting opposite parties on the allegations that the contesting opposite parties had obtained ex parte decrees collusively and fraudulently. It had also been alleged that the pradhan of the Gaon Sabha was in collusion with the contesting opposite parties and had wrongly and illegally helped the contesting opposite parties in obtaining the ex parte decree.

25. Placing reliance upon the aforesaid observations I think that in the present case the petitioner was vitally interested in the decree passed in favour of the contesting opposite parties which he wants to be vacated. If the decrees in favour of the contesting opposite parties remain intact, the petitioner's right of irrigating his fields from the disputed land shall be vitally affected. In such a circumstance even if the petitioner is assumed to have no locus standi to move the application for setting aside the ex parte decrees in favour of the contesting opposite parties, it cannot be said that the trial court bad no jurisdiction to set aside the ex parte decrees which were against the provisions of law and were the result of collusion and fraud practised by the plaintiff and the defendants in the suits in which decrees recognizing the claim of the contesting opposite parties in the disputed land as Sirdar were passed. I have a strong feeling that the trial court while passing decrees in favour of the contesting opposite parties had blatantly ignored the provisions of Section 132 read with Section 195 of the U. P. Z. A. and L. R. Act, hence it acted rightly in setting right its own wrong through the order dated 10-6-1969.