The appellant Society claims to have purchased the entire 93.25 acres of land in Survey NO s .148 155 from six joint owners including Mohd.
Ismail, the father of respondent number1.
Being aggrieved by order dated 29th October, 2015 and 2nd November, 2015 setting aside the ex parte preliminary and final decree dated 14th November, 2005 and 17th April, 2007 respectively, the first respondent filed revision before the High Court i.e. C.R.P. NO.1214 of 2016 and C.R.P. No.1231 of 2016.
In the said suit, preliminary decree dated 14th November, 2005 and final decree dated 17th April, 2007 were passed.
According to the appellant Society, they were number served with summons and that the summons were served on a wrong person.
124345 IST Reason The appellant Society also claims that many of its members have built their houses on the said plots which is refuted by the respondents.
Challenging the orders passed in I.A.NO s .232/2007 and 233/2007, the first respondent filed C.R.P. No.462 of 2009 and R.P. No.803 of 2009 before the High Court and the same was allowed and the matter was remanded to the Trial Court on the ground that the trial companyrt had number given detailed reasons.
Ismail, the father of respondent number1, by a sale deed dated 20th May, 1980.
Out of the said property of 93.25 acres in Survey No s .148 155, certain extent of land is the suit property in the partition suit in O.S. No.21 of 2004.
We have heard Mr. C.U. Singh, learned senior companynsel, and Ms. Madhvi Divan, learned companynsel, both appearing for the appellant Society and Mr. Anupam Lal Das, learned companynsel appearing for the respondents and also perused the impugned order and materials on record.
Judge allowed both the applications I.A.NO s .232/2007 and 233/2007, by observing that the ex parte decree was obtained by keeping the appellant in the dark.
Even when those applications were pending, the respondents filed O.S. No.2980 of 2007 challenging the sale deed dated 20 th May, 1980 and prayed for setting aside the same.
The appellant Society claims to have purchased 93.25 acres in Survey No s .148 155 from the six joint owners including Mohd.
The appellant Society claims to have developed the said land by making the house plots numbering 1197 plots and is said to have delivered the Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by MAHABIR SINGH Date 2018.10.05 possession of the plots to its 1197 members.
Respondent No s .1 and 3 to 8 have filed suit for partition in respect of certain extent of land in Survey No s .148 155 in O.S. NO.21 of 2004.
By order dated 29th August, 2008, the Third Addl.
In the said suit O.S. No.2980 of 2007, the first respondent filed I.A. No.1208 of 2013 seeking extension of time to companyply with the companyditional order and the said application was dismissed by 25 th October, 2013.
Having learnt of the ex parte decrees, on 22nd May, 2007 the appellant Society filed I.A.NO s .232/2007 and 233/2007 to set aside the preliminary and final decrees.
Subsequently, the appellant Society has also filed written statement in the partition suit i.e. O.S.No.21/2004.
The first respondent has also filed C.R.P. NO.820 of 2014 for restoration of their suit, O.S. No.2980 of 2007.
By impugned order, the High Court has allowed all the three revisions and again remanded the matter to the Third Additional Judge for fresh companysideration which is impugned in these appeals.
Subsequently, as numberevidence was adduced in S. No.2980 of 2007 the same came to be dismissed.
On remand, the Third Additional Judge by a well reasoned order dated 29th October, 2015 and 2nd November, 2015 once again set aside the preliminary and final decree dated 14 th November, 2005 and 17th April, 2007 respectively.
By perusal of Orders dated 29th October, 2015 and 2nd November, 2015, we find that the order of the Third Additional Judge setting aside the preliminary and final decrees dated dated 14th November, 2005 and 17th April, 2007 respectively, is upon companysideration of the averments in the application and well reasoned.
Sine the appellant Society is said to have purchased the extent of 93.25 acres in Survey NO s .148 155, a reasonable opportunity has to be afforded to the appellant Society.In both, preliminary and final decree stage the appellant Society herein was set ex parte.
BANUMATHI, J. These appeals arise out of order dated 29th September, 2016 of the High Court setting aside Orders dated 29th October, 2015 and 2nd November, 2015 passed by the Trial Court in and by which the Trial Court has set aside the preliminary decree as well as the final decree passed in favour of the respondents.
