Indradeo Choudhary v. Smt. Kaikai Devi
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CIVIL MISCELLANEOUS JURISDICTION No.206 of 2022 ====================================================== Indradeo Choudhary Son of Late Kamleshwari Choudhary of Village Arariya, P.O.Maraiya, P.S. Parbatta, District-Khagaria. ... ... Petitioner/s
Versus
1.
Smt. Kaikai Devi Wife of Sri Vakildeo Yadav Resident of Vilalge Kareta, P.O. and P.S. Gogari, District Khagaria 2.
Most. Abhilasha Devi Wife of Late Pintu Choudhary, Resident of Village Arariya, P.O. Maraiya, P.S. Parbatta, District Khagaria. ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioner/s :
Mr. Dronacharya, Sr Adv.
Mr. Arghesh Kumar, Adv.
For the Respondent/s :
Mr.
====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR SINHA ORAL ORDER 29-06-2022 Heard Mr. Dronacharya, learned senior counsel for the petitioner.
The petitioner is aggrieved by order dated 18.02.2022 passed in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 12/2017 by learned Additional Sessions Judge- 3rd , Khagaria whereby the order dated 21.08.2017 passed in Misc. Case No. 12/2013 and the ex parte decree passed in Title Suit No. 121/2010 has been set aside and the Title Suit No. 121/2010 has been restored to its original file on payment of cost of Rs. 5000/-.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner referring to impugned order submits that the learned lower appellate court in para-4 of the order has come to the conclusion that the
Patna High Court C.Misc. No.206 of 2022(2) dt.29-06-2022 2/2 defendants/respondents 1st Set had come to know about the pendency of the suit and despite the specific finding has allowed the Misc. Case filed by Respondent 1st party. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned order. It appears from para-6 of the impugned order that the court below after having gone through the material on record has come to the conclusion that due to wrong address on the summon, the same could not be served upon the appellant/defendant No.1 and without service of summon, ex parte decree has been passed and accordingly, in the interest of justice, he has set aside the ex parte decree and has restored the suit to its original file.
I do not find any material irregularity and the jurisdictional error in the order impugned, accordingly this application is rejected.
(Anil Kumar Sinha, J) perwez U