Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhajan Lal Through His Lrs vs Kishan Through His Lrs And Others on 19 March, 2024
2024:PHHC:039755
C. R. No. 6785 of 2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.124
Case No. : C. R. No. 6785 of 2023
Date of Decision : March 19, 2024
Bhajan Lal (since deceased) through his LRs .... Petitioners
vs.
Kishan (since deceased) through his LRs
and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr.Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate
Ms.Khushboo Garg, Advocate
for the petitioners.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. Challenge in the present revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 27.03.2017 (Annexure P-4), passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hodal (hereinafter referred to as - Trial Court), dismissing the application dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure P-3), filed by the defendants under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 19.07.2000 (Annexure P-1) and ex-parte decree dated 11.08.2006 (Annexure P-2). Further challenge is to the order dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned District and Sessions Judge, Palwal (hereinafter referred to as - Lower Appellate Court), whereby the aforesaid order passed by learned Trial Court has been affirmed.
MONIKA2024.04.02 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2024:PHHC:039755 C. R. No. 6785 of 2023 -2-
2. The brief facts, as culled out from the paper book, are that petitioner/defendant Bhajan Lal and respondent/plaintiff Kishan were the real brothers. The suit in question was filed on 02.02.1998 by plaintiff Kishan. Defendant no.1 Bhajan Lal had already expired on 25.02.1998 i.e. soon after filing of suit in question. During pendency of suit, legal heirs of Bhajan Lal were brought on record. However, legal heirs of defendant no.1 Bhajan Lal were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.07.2000 (Annexure P-1) and the suit was partly decreed on 11.08.2006 (Annexure P-
2). An application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree has been filed by legal representatives of defendant no.1 Bhajan Lal, which has been dismissed by both the Courts below.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner/ defendant Bhajan Lal expired on 25.02.1998. The family was already in shock as all of them were dependent upon Bhajan Lal. Then unfortunately, son of Bhajan Lal namely Rajesh also died on 05.04.2000. It has further been contended that no summons were ever received by family members of deceased Bhajan Lal. They came to know about ex-parte decree dated 11.08.2006 (Annexure P-2) only on 02.12.2009 when they visited Halqa Patwari to seek some information regarding pension. They moved application dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure P-3) under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, which was dismissed by learned Trial Court on the ground that all the legal heirs were of the same family and residing in the same house and it was presumed that they were fully aware about the pendency of the suit. MONIKA 2024.04.02 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
2024:PHHC:039755 C. R. No. 6785 of 2023 -3-
4. I have heard submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the case file.
5. Record reveals that the suit in question was filed in the year 1998. Ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 11.08.2006. Defendant no.1 was ex-parte, whereas other defendants were appearing in the suit. Notice to defendant no.1 (since deceased) was issued on 09.02.1998 and after his death, legal representatives of defendant no.1 were also impleaded in the suit. The Lower Appellate Court observed in its order dated 14.09.2022 that after impleading legal representatives, notice to them was issued on 27.05.1999. Power of Attorney on behalf of his widow namely Rajjo was filed on 12.08.1999. Since one of the legal representatives had appeared before the Court below and Vakalatnama was also filed on her behalf, so petitioners were restrained from taking the plea that they were not duly served in the suit.
6. In case Lingeswaran etc. vs. Thirunagalingam reported as 2022(2) RCR (Civil) 319, it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the Court has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The statutory provision may cause hardship to a particular party but the Court has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. Since petitioner was having knowledge of pendency of suit, even if there was any irregularity in the service of summons, then the same is not a ground to set aside the ex- parte judgment and decree, in view of the proviso of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
7. In view of the above discussion, I find no illegality in the orders MONIKA 2024.04.02 10:51 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2024:PHHC:039755 C. R. No. 6785 of 2023 -4- passed by both the Courts below, warranting interference by this Court.
8. Accordingly, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed being devoid of any merit.
9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with this judgment.
March 19, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
MONIKA
2024.04.02 10:51
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document