Smt. Atikunnisha v. Abu Ahmad and another whereby an order dated

1. Heard Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sumit Chauhan, the learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the judgement and order dated 08.08.2025, passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Bahraich in Civil Revision No.06 of 2024: Smt. Atikunnisha Vs. Abu Ahmad and another whereby an order dated 19.01.2024, passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division Kaiserganj, Bahraich in Misc. Case No.57/74/2020 has been set aside whereby the trial court had allowed the application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioners seeking setting aside of an ex-parte judgement and order dated 13.02.2020, passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division Kaiserganj, Bahraich in Regular Suit No.278 of 2015.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the opposite party has filed Regular Suit No.278 of 2015 in the Court of learned Civil Judge Junior Division Kaiserganj, Bahraich for a decree of perpetual injunction against the petitioners on 27.03.2015. The suit was registered on the date of filing and summons were issued to 2 A227 No. 5609 of 2025 the defendants. On 27.03.2025 itself the trial court passed an order directing the parties to maintain status-quo. Numerous orders passed thereafter indicate that the temporary injunction order was extended repetitively and on 27.10.2015 the plaintiff was directed to take steps for issuance of summons to the defendants. Steps for service were taken on 19.01.2016. On 03.03.2016 the advocates were abstaining from work and the trial court passed a cryptic order stating that the defendants were sufficiently served without specifying the mode of service as to whether the summons were served personally or through post or by refusal or by publication. On 03.03.2016 the next date was fixed as 13.04.2016 on which date the last opportunity for filing written statement was granted for

11.05.2016. On 11.05.2016 the trial court passed an order for proceeding with the suit ex-parte and thereafter it passed an ex- parte judgment and decree on 13.02.2020.

4. The petitioners filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree on 26.02.2020 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2020 stating that they came to know about the suit for the first time on

18.02.2020. The opposite party filed objection against application stating that the trial court had held the service of summons on defendants to be sufficient in its order dated

03.03.2016 and on 11.05.2016 it had ordered the suit to proceed ex-parte. The opposite party did not state in the objection that summons of the suit had been adequately served upon the defendants-petitioners. The trial court allowed the application by means of an order dated 19.01.2024 subject to payment of Rs.300/- as cost holding that the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. has been filed under limitation and the cause shown by the applicant for his absence is sufficient. Further keeping in view the principles of natural justice it would be appropriate that the suit be decided on its merits.

5. The opposite party challenged the aforesaid order dated

19.01.2024 by filing Civil Revision No.06 of 2024, which has been 3 A227 No. 5609 of 2025 allowed by means of a judgement and order dated 08.08.2025, passed by the 3rd Additional & Sessions Judge, Bahraich. The revisional court set aside the order passed by learned trial court on the ground that the trial court has merely held that cause shown for absence is sufficient and it has not elaborately dealt with the cause shown.

6. The applicant seeking setting aside of ex-parte decree is required to make out sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the case was proceeded and decided as ex-parte. The petitioners had stated in their application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. that they had no knowledge about the proceedings of the suit and they came to know about it for the first time on 18.02.2020. The opposite party had filed an objection against the application wherein she merely stated that the court had held service of summons for defendants to be sufficient without specifying as to how the summons had been served on the defendants.

7. This court has already referred to previous orders passed by learned trial court issuing summons of suit to the defendants, holding the service to be sufficient and proceeding ex-parte and the trial court has not stated as to how the summon of the suit was served on the defendants. When service was held to be sufficient in a cursory manner and the defendants appeared before the trial court and filed an application seeking setting aside the ex-parte decree within limitation prescribed by law and categorically stated that they had no knowledge about the suit till

18.02.2020 and the trial court perused the application, referred the cause shown in the application and the objections filed by the plaintiffs against the same, it cannot be said that the trial court has exercised its discretion in setting aside ex-parte decree without due consideration of facts and circumstances of the case.

8. The aforesaid orders passed by the trial court contains sufficient reason for exercise of discretion in it cannot be said that the trial court has committed any jurisdictional error or any material irregularity in passing the order dated 19.01.2024 setting aside the 4 A227 No. 5609 of 2025 ex-parte judgment and decree dated 13.02.2020 warranting interference in revision under Section 115 C.P.C.

9. In absence of any jurisdictional error in the order of the trial court the revisional court ought not to have interfered in the discretionary order of the trial court in exercise of its powers under Section 115 C.P.C.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad Vs. Prithvi Raj Singh: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3828 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the courts should not shut out cases on mere technicalities but rather afford opportunity to both sides and thrash out the matter on merits. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the revisional jurisdiction should not be exercised in interfering with the order of the trial court has exercised its discretion in setting aside the ex-parte decree for justifiable reasons, accepting the reasons given by the defendant-appellant.

11. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered view that the order dated 19.01.2024, passed by Civil Judge Junior Division Kaiserganj, Bahraich in Misc. Case No.57/74/2020 did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or any material irregularity warranting interference by the revisional court. The judgment and order dated 08.08.2025, passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Bahraich in Civil Revision No.06 of 2024: Smt. Atikunnisha Vs. Abu Ahmad and another is unsustainable in law and the same is set aside.

12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, writ petition stands allowed. October 29, 2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench

1. Heard Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Sumit Chauhan, the learned counsel for the opposite parties and perused the records.

2. By means of the instant petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India the petitioners have challenged the judgement and order dated 08.08.2025, passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Bahraich in Civil Revision No.06 of 2024: Smt. Atikunnisha Vs. Abu Ahmad and another whereby an order dated 19.01.2024, passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division Kaiserganj, Bahraich in Misc. Case No.57/74/2020 has been set aside whereby the trial court had allowed the application under Order IX Rule 13 of C.P.C. filed by the petitioners seeking setting aside of an ex-parte judgement and order dated 13.02.2020, passed by learned Civil Judge Junior Division Kaiserganj, Bahraich in Regular Suit No.278 of 2015.

3. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the opposite party has filed Regular Suit No.278 of 2015 in the Court of learned Civil Judge Junior Division Kaiserganj, Bahraich for a decree of perpetual injunction against the petitioners on 27.03.2015. The suit was registered on the date of filing and summons were issued to 2 A227 No. 5609 of 2025 the defendants. On 27.03.2025 itself the trial court passed an order directing the parties to maintain status-quo. Numerous orders passed thereafter indicate that the temporary injunction order was extended repetitively and on 27.10.2015 the plaintiff was directed to take steps for issuance of summons to the defendants. Steps for service were taken on 19.01.2016. On 03.03.2016 the advocates were abstaining from work and the trial court passed a cryptic order stating that the defendants were sufficiently served without specifying the mode of service as to whether the summons were served personally or through post or by refusal or by publication. On 03.03.2016 the next date was fixed as 13.04.2016 on which date the last opportunity for filing written statement was granted for

11.05.2016. On 11.05.2016 the trial court passed an order for proceeding with the suit ex-parte and thereafter it passed an ex- parte judgment and decree on 13.02.2020.

4. The petitioners filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree on 26.02.2020 under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the judgment and decree dated 13.02.2020 stating that they came to know about the suit for the first time on

18.02.2020. The opposite party filed objection against application stating that the trial court had held the service of summons on defendants to be sufficient in its order dated

03.03.2016 and on 11.05.2016 it had ordered the suit to proceed ex-parte. The opposite party did not state in the objection that summons of the suit had been adequately served upon the defendants-petitioners. The trial court allowed the application by means of an order dated 19.01.2024 subject to payment of Rs.300/- as cost holding that the application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. has been filed under limitation and the cause shown by the applicant for his absence is sufficient. Further keeping in view the principles of natural justice it would be appropriate that the suit be decided on its merits.

5. The opposite party challenged the aforesaid order dated

19.01.2024 by filing Civil Revision No.06 of 2024, which has been 3 A227 No. 5609 of 2025 allowed by means of a judgement and order dated 08.08.2025, passed by the 3rd Additional & Sessions Judge, Bahraich. The revisional court set aside the order passed by learned trial court on the ground that the trial court has merely held that cause shown for absence is sufficient and it has not elaborately dealt with the cause shown.

6. The applicant seeking setting aside of ex-parte decree is required to make out sufficient cause for his non-appearance when the case was proceeded and decided as ex-parte. The petitioners had stated in their application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. that they had no knowledge about the proceedings of the suit and they came to know about it for the first time on 18.02.2020. The opposite party had filed an objection against the application wherein she merely stated that the court had held service of summons for defendants to be sufficient without specifying as to how the summons had been served on the defendants.

7. This court has already referred to previous orders passed by learned trial court issuing summons of suit to the defendants, holding the service to be sufficient and proceeding ex-parte and the trial court has not stated as to how the summon of the suit was served on the defendants. When service was held to be sufficient in a cursory manner and the defendants appeared before the trial court and filed an application seeking setting aside the ex-parte decree within limitation prescribed by law and categorically stated that they had no knowledge about the suit till

18.02.2020 and the trial court perused the application, referred the cause shown in the application and the objections filed by the plaintiffs against the same, it cannot be said that the trial court has exercised its discretion in setting aside ex-parte decree without due consideration of facts and circumstances of the case.

8. The aforesaid orders passed by the trial court contains sufficient reason for exercise of discretion in it cannot be said that the trial court has committed any jurisdictional error or any material irregularity in passing the order dated 19.01.2024 setting aside the 4 A227 No. 5609 of 2025 ex-parte judgment and decree dated 13.02.2020 warranting interference in revision under Section 115 C.P.C.

9. In absence of any jurisdictional error in the order of the trial court the revisional court ought not to have interfered in the discretionary order of the trial court in exercise of its powers under Section 115 C.P.C.

10. The learned counsel for the petitioners has placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Dwarika Prasad Vs. Prithvi Raj Singh: 2024 SCC OnLine SC 3828 wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the courts should not shut out cases on mere technicalities but rather afford opportunity to both sides and thrash out the matter on merits. Hon'ble Supreme Court further held that the revisional jurisdiction should not be exercised in interfering with the order of the trial court has exercised its discretion in setting aside the ex-parte decree for justifiable reasons, accepting the reasons given by the defendant-appellant.

11. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the considered view that the order dated 19.01.2024, passed by Civil Judge Junior Division Kaiserganj, Bahraich in Misc. Case No.57/74/2020 did not suffer from any jurisdictional error or any material irregularity warranting interference by the revisional court. The judgment and order dated 08.08.2025, passed by 3rd Additional District Judge, Bahraich in Civil Revision No.06 of 2024: Smt. Atikunnisha Vs. Abu Ahmad and another is unsustainable in law and the same is set aside.

12. With the aforesaid observations/directions, writ petition stands allowed. October 29, 2025 Ram. (Subhash Vidyarthi,J.) RAM SINGH High Court of Judicature at Allahabad, Lucknow Bench