11 September 2009
Supreme Court
Download

GYANMATI YADAV Vs RAM SAGAR YADAV

Case number: T.P.(C) No.-000934-000934 / 2008
Diary number: 22859 / 2008


1

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION

TRANSFER PETITION [CIVIL] NO.934 OF 2008

Gyanmati Yadav       ...Petitioner(s)

Versus

Ram Sagar Yadav       ...Respondent(s)

O  R  D  E  R

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.

This is a petition for transfer of HMA Case  

No. 700/2007 titled Ram Sagar Yadav v. Smt. Gyanmati  

Yadav, pending in the Court of Additional District  

Judge, Delhi.  

By  an  order  dated  25.8.2008,  this  Court  

directed issuance  of notice  to the  respondent and  

stayed further proceedings before the trial Court.  

Thereafter,  Additional  District  Judge  sent  letter  

dated 17.9.2008 to this Court bringing to its notice  

that HMA Case No. 700/2007 had been finally disposed  

of on 18.8.2008 and an application filed under Order  

IX  Rule  13  of  the  Code  of  Civil  Procedure,  for  

setting aside the ex-parte decree was pending.  In  

view of that letter, the case was adjourned.  On the  

last date, i.e., 10.7.2009, the case was adjourned  

for two months.

....2/-

2

- 2 -

The registry of the Court has placed before  

us copy of letter dated 10.7.2009 sent by District  

and Sessions  Judge, Tis  Hazari, Delhi,  perusal of  

which reveals that the application filed under Order  

IX Rule 13 CPC was dismissed in default on 18.5.2009  

because none had appeared on behalf of the parties.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  

petitioner stated that he is not in a position to  

inform the Court whether any petition for restoration  

of application under Order IX Rule 13 has been filed.  

This being the position, the transfer petition will  

be deemed to have become infructuous and the same is,  

accordingly, disposed of.

Needless to say that in case the application  

under  Order  IX  Rule  13  of  the  Code  of  Civil  

Procedure, 1908, is restored and ex-parte decree is  

set aside, it would be open to the petitioner to move  

this Court afresh for transfer of the main case.

 ......................J.       [B.N. AGRAWAL]

......................J.       [G.S. SINGHVI]

New Delhi, September 11, 2009.