IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR. ORDER 6.11.2008. S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.11793/2008 Savitri Devi & Ors. Vs. Rameshwar Dayal & Ors. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DALIP SINGH Shri Suresh Sahni, for the petitioner. The matter arise out of an application filed under order 9 rule 13 CPC by the applicant against the preliminary decree passed by the learned trial court dated 5.11.1999 . The learned trial court has dismissed the said application vide its order dated 18.8.2008. The appeal filed against the order passed b the learned trial court on the application filed under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. has been dismissed by the learned appellate court vide its order dated 24.9.2008. The two courts below have held that the provisions of order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. are not attracted. In the facts and circumstances of the present case as the applicant petitioner was not a party (defendant)to the suit and therefore it is not a case whether there has been non service of summons on the defendant or any irregularities in the service of the summons on the defendant as provided under order 9 rule 13 C.P.C. So also the provisions of order 1 rule 10 CPC are concerned the same are not attracted as the application came to be filed on 20.9.2006 after judgment and decree dated 5.11.1999 when the learned trial court had already decided the suit and no proceedings were pending. In the facts and circumstances therefore no case for interference in writ jurisdiction in the matter arising out of the application dated 20.9.2006 filed by the petitioner is made out. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. The petitioner is free to resort to such remedy as may be available in accordance with law. (DALIP SINGH),J. Ramchandrkhatri,PS