A brief reference to the factual aspect would suffice.
When the judgment debtors came to know of the symbolic possession taken by the decree holders, they filed objection under Section 47 CPC saying that the decree was number legally enforceable as it was barred by time.
The said application was number restored by the trial Court and a Miscellaneous Appeal filed also stood dismissed on 10.1.1987.
According to the appellants, only a symbolic possession was taken as numbernotice as mandatorily required to be served in terms of Order XXI Rule 22 or Order XXI Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure was ever served on the judgment debtors.
The Civil revision filed against the order of dismissal was also dismissed on 6.4.1987.
The suit was decreed ex parte as the defendants did number appear on the date fixed.
As already numbered, the Civil Revision was summarily dismissed.
The ex parte decree in the companycerned suit was passed on 3.5.1976.
No appeal was, however, filed against the aforesaid judgment and decree.
At numberstage any stay was granted by any Court and the respondents as decree holders filed an application for execution on 5.4.1991.
A three Judge Bench by its judgment dated May 13, 2005 in Dr. Chiranji Lal D by Lrs.
V. Hari Das d by Lrs.
The Civil Revision was filed against the order of the Executing Court allowing the application for execution of a decree which was passed more than 14 years ago.
The present appellants who are the judgment debtors filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte decree which was dismissed for default on 14.7.1978.
In support of the appeal, learned companynsel for the appellants submitted that the High Court was number justified in summarily rejecting the Civil Revision.
The respondents plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration of title and recovery of possession in which the appellants had appeared and filed a written statement.
ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in this appeal is to the order of a learned Single Judge of the Patna High Court summarily rejecting the Civil Revision filed by the appellants under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 in short the Code .
