RANCHI, India, Aug. 19 -- Jharkhand High Court issued the following order on July 21:
1. Heard Mr. S.K. Murtty, learned counsel for petitioner as well as Mr. Deepak Kr. Dubey, learned counsel for the opposite parties.
2. The instant civil revision has been directed against the order dated 10.06.2022 passed by learned Principal District Judge, Giridih in Civil Misc. Appeal No. 04 of 2019 whereby and whereunder the learned appellate court upheld the order dated 25.04.2019 passed by learned Munsif, Giridih in Misc. Case No. 08 of 2013, whereby and whereunder petition filed by the petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 read with Section 151 for setting aside ex parte decree dated 31.01.2012 passed in Eviction Suit No. 10 of 2006 by learned Civil Judge, Junior Division, Giridih has been dismissed.
3. I have already heard the arguments of learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned counsel for the opposite parties.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that Eviction Suit No. 10 of 2006 was instituted by the plaintiff under Section 11(c) and (d) of Bihar Buildings (Lease, Rent & Eviction) Control Act, 1982 i.e. on the ground of personal necessity in default of payment of rent. Ultimately, the suit was decreed ex parte and the defendant/petitioner is directed to hand over the possession of the suit premises within two months from the date of the judgment.
5. By Assailing the ex parte decree, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that no summons issued by the court was ever served upon the petitioner due to incorrect address as mentioned in the plaint and as per service report of summons upon defendant no.1 (petitioner), it is reported that he has refused to receive the same and in respect of defendant no.2, it was reported that he could not met hence, his summons was affixed on the door. It is further submitted that since there is no valid service of summons on defendant no.2 as such registered notice was required to send through post-office along with summons on his correct address, but the plaintiff/opposite party dishonestly did not take any step and prayed before the concerned court for publishing the notice in daily newspaper " Prabhat Khabar" . It is further submitted that petitioner is illiterate person and earns his livelihood by selling vegetables, therefore, he could not read the newspaper, hence could not know about the institution of the aforesaid eviction suit and did not appear to contest the same which was decreed ex parte against both the defendants. It is further submitted that the defendant no.1 was purposely pleaded as party although he had nothing to do with the suit premises rather defendant no.2 (petitioner) who is coming in peaceful possession of the suit premises on his own rights as purchaser alongwith one Md. Mumtaj Alam through registered sale deed dated 22.08.2004 from one Binod Ram (Grand-son of Khatiyani Raiyat) which is situated over Khata No. 37, Plot No. 806, Area 01 Decimal (480 Sq. ft) out of total area 14 decimal. The purchasers have also got mutation in their favour vide Mutation Case No. 1039 of 1011 and paying rent for the same. It is further submitted that the petitioner is residing at Sabji Mohalla, Bazaar Pachamba as mentioned in his Aadhar Card also.
*Rest of the document can be viewed at: (https://hcservices.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindiaHC/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=zDLovBVSUw02H8XukOjXfJemODb6WWXfKazyPUYAgbLEj1BVcncmopGP0q1VIC8H&caseno=C.R./32/2022&cCode=1&cino=JHHC010316182022&state_code=7&appFlag=)
Disclaimer: Curated by HT Syndication.
