The appellant preferred a civil revision in the High Court which has been dismissed.
2004 1 SCR 838 The Judgment of the Court was delivered by R.C. LAHOTI, J. Leave granted.
On 27.11.1995, the suit was decreed ex parte against the defendants respondent number.
Prayer was also made for companydoning the delay in filling the application inasmuch as the ex parte decree was number in the knowledge of the respondent No.4.
the respondent No.4, it appears, was number aware of the pendency of the suit rather the vendors stated in the deed of sale that the property was number a subject matter of any litigation.
He must suffer the companysequences of an adverse decree passed against his vendors who have number chosen to lay any challenge to the ex parte decree, submitted the learned companynsel.
The only plea raised and vehemently urged by Shri S.N. Mishra, the learned senior companynsel for the appellant before this Court, as was done before the trial Court and the High Court too.
The law laid down by a four Judges Bench of this Court in Smt.
On 30.5.1998, the respondent No.4 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC seeking setting aside of the decree and also making a prayer under Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC for being brought on record.
The respondent No.4 is a transferee pendente lite and in the absence of his having promptly taken steps under Order 22 Rule 10 of the CPC for being brought on record, he remains bound by the result of the suit.
is that an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC can be filed only by a defendant and by numberone else.
During the pendency of a civil suit relating to an immovable property, respondent No.4 herein purchased the suit property from the defendants respondent Nos.
2 3 by a registered deed of sale dated 24.9.1995.
