Allahabad High Court
A227/14033/2026 of MAHESH CHANDRA GARG Vs STATE OF U.P. AND ANOTHER on 5 October 2026
JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14033 of 2026 Court No. - 9 HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J. 1. This is a petition on behalf of plaintiff/decree holder. The suit instituted by plaintiff in the year 1988 was decreed ex-parte on 16.04.1990. Against the ex-parte decree, no
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
MATTERS UNDER ARTICLE 227 No. - 14033 of 2026
Court No. - 9
HON'BLE ROHIT RANJAN AGARWAL, J.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. This is a petition on behalf of plaintiff/decree holder. The suit instituted by plaintiff in the year 1988 was decreed ex-parte on 16.04.1990. Against the ex-parte decree, no application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed, nor any civil appeal was filed.
2. In the meantime, decree holder had filed an execution case and decree was executed and sale deed was executed in favour of decree holder in the year 1995. A delayed application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed by judgment-debtor which was dismissed on 04.10.1991. Thereafter, another application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was preferred by the judgment-debtor which was also dismissed on 18.03.1994. After a lapse of 31 years, son of judgment-debtor had filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC along with application under Section 5 of Limitation Act to which objections have already been preferred by petitioner/decree holder which are pending consideration.
3. Present writ petition has been filed for setting aside the entire proceedings. This Court finds that as the objections to the application filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC have already been filed by the plaintiff/decree holder, the Court below is hereby expected to proceed with the same and decide the same within a period of three months, after hearing all the affected parties, considering the objections filed by petitioner as well as the fact that decree has already stood satisfied in the year 1995 and two recall applications filed under Order IX Rule 13 CPC by the judgment-debtor have already been dismissed, one in the year 1991 Versus Counsel for Petitioner(s) : Ashutosh, Vijai Kumar Rai Counsel for Respondent(s) : C.S.C. Mahesh Chandra Garg .....Petitioner(s) State of U.P. and Another .....Respondent(s)
and another in the year 1994.
4. Writ petition stands disposed of. October 6, 2026 SK Goswami A227 No. 14033 of 2026 2 (Rohit Ranjan Agarwal,J.) Digitally signed by :- SHIVAKANT GOSWAMI High Court of Judicature at Allahabad