IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 5710/2008 (Chagan through Legal Representatives Smt. Geeta Devi & Others Versus Additional District Judge No.2, Alwar & Another) Date of Order :: 1st July, 2008 PRESENT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA KUMAR JAIN Mr. Gajendra Singh Rathore for the petitioners BY THE COURT: Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner. 2. The plaintiff – respondent Smt. Nirmala Kumari filed a suit for possession in respect of disputed property in the trial court against sole defendant Chagan S/o Chajuram in the month of November, 1992 wherein the defendant Chagan appeared. Subsequently he did not appear in the proceeding of the trial court and consequently an ex-parte order was passed against him and after trial of the suit for about two and a half year an ex-parte decree was passed on 18th May, 1996. Thereafter an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed for setting aside the ex-parte decree but the said application was dismissed on 9th October, 2003. An appeal was preferred against that order which was also dismissed on 31st January, -2- 2004. A revision was preferred before this Court which was also dismissed on 2nd November, 2004. The present petitioners who are legal representatives of Chagan (defendant) preferred a regular appeal before the first appellate court on 1st December, 2007 against ex-parte decree dated 18th May, 1996 passed by the trial court alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act. The appellate court was of the view that the appellant has failed to prove any sufficient cause for condonation of delay of more than three years. The revision petition in the matter was dismissed by the High Court on 2nd November, 2004 and no reason has been assigned for not filing the present regular appeal upto December, 2007. Consequently, the appellate court dismissed the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act and appeal was also dismissed being barred by limitation. The said order of the first appellate court is under challenge in this writ petition. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the petitioners were not aware about impugned decree passed by the trial court, therefore, they could not prefer an appeal before the appellate court and in -3- these circumstances the appellate court committed an illegality in not condoning the delay and in dismissing the appeal being barred by limitation. 4. The above mentioned facts clearly show that the suit was filed against sole defendant Chagan, the husband of petitioner no. 1/1 and father of petitioners no. 1/2 to 1/4. Shri Chagan appeared in the trial court but subsequently he disappeared and ex-parte order was passed against him. The ex-parte decree was passed on 18th May, 1996. An application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed which was dismissed. Appeal and revision preferred in the matter were also dismissed. In these circumstances, I find that the learned appellate court was fully justified in dismissing the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay of more than three years in filing the appeal against original decree dated 18th May, 1996. 5. I do not find any illegality, perversity or jurisdictional error in the order passed by the trial court. There is no merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. (NARENDRA KUMAR Jain),J.