CRP(IO)/484/2026 of MAZIBUR RAHMAN AND 4 ORS. Vs MSST. RUKIA BEGUM @ RUKIA KHATUN AND 6 ORS. on 28 September 2026

ORDER

29.09.2026

Heard Mr. S. Biswas, learned counsel for the petitioner.

2. Considering the nature of the prayer being made by the petitioner, the revision petition is taken up for disposal at this stage only.

3. The present revision has been filed seeking a direction to the learned court below for taking up the application filed by the revision petitioner under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 16/9/2010 by which T.S. No. 13 of 2007 was decreed ex-parte holding that the schedule land is the joint property of the plaintiff and the main defendants and out of the schedule lands, the plaintiffs are entitled to right, title, and possession over schedule 3 suit land measuring 12 Bigha, 3 Katha, 15 Lechas.

4. It is stated and submitted that the petitioners herein were proforma defendants in the suit and the suit proceeded ex-parte as already mentioned.

5. It is submitted that on principle, the petitioners do not have any quarrel with the partition which was sought for by the plaintiffs but subsequently, when the decree was put into execution, the process of execution also sought to cover land area of the petitioners which they had purchased from one of the co-sharers. It is submitted that the learned court below is proceeding with the execution of the decree of partition.

6. The grievance of the petitioners ventilated through this revision petition is that while the execution in the suit is being proceeded with but their application under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC seeking interference with the ex-parte order is pending.

7. It is fairly submitted that there is also a delay of 2,820 days in preferring the said application for which a separate petition has been filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963. It is also submitted that the applicant has also filed a suitable application under the CPC for stay of the proceedings before the learned court below.

8. As already mentioned at the outset, considering the nature of the prayer made herein, this Court is of the considered view that it will be reasonable to direct adjudication of the delay condonation petition together with the connected petition for setting aside the ex-parte decree.

9. In any case, these applications are pending before the learned court below and the said learned court is already in seisin of the same.

10. Accordingly, in the given facts and circumstances, the instant revision is disposed of with the following observations and directions:

(i) The learned trial court, i.e. the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Darrang at Mangaldoi shall take up for adjudication the delay condonation petition filed by the petitioner regarding condonation of delay of 2820 days in preferring the application under Order IX Rule 13 of the CPC in accordance with the governing law regarding delay condonation.

(ii) In the event of the delay being condoned, the learned trial court shall then proceed to take up the petition filed under Order IX Rule 13 along with the stay petition.

11. The aforesaid exercise may be endeavored to be done by the learned trial court expeditiously.

12. A copy of this order shall be transmitted to the learned court below.

JUDGE Comparing Assistant