Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Kaur vs Lakhbir Singh (Now Deceased) Thr ... on 1 December, 2022
106
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 2816 of 2017
Date of Decision: 01.12.2022
Paramjit Kaur
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Lakhbir Singh (Now Deceased) through his Legal Representatives and
Others
... Respondent(s)
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. Baljinder Singh, Advocate
for Mr. Bikramjit Aroura, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Ms. Pratula Sethi, Advocate
for Mr. Rahul Bhargva, Advocate
for the respondent No.1.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. An ex parte decree for specific performance of the agreement to
sell was passed on 10.01.2013. There were as many as three defendants in
the suit, namely Sh.Balwinder Singh, Smt. Gurmit Kaur and Smt.Paramjit
Kaur. The suit was filed on the basis of an agreement to sell dated
17.06.2003. The defendant No.1 and 2 did not contest the suit, whereas, the
defendant No.3 filed the written statement and examined herself in evidence
but subsequently, absented herself from the proceedings. Thus, the suit was
decreed ex parte. The petitioner herein is the defendant No.3 in the suit. She
filed a first appeal along with an application under Section 5 of the
Limitation Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as "the 1963 Act") to seek
condonation of delay of 315 days in filing the appeal. The First Appellate
1 of 4
Court, after discussing her deposition, has dismissed the application vide the
impugned order dated 07.01.2017. The relevant discussion is in para 12 of
the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court, which reads as under:-
"12. In support of her contentions the appellant has failed to
examine any other witness expect herself. Her cross-
examination is very relevant. During her cross-examination she
has stated that Shri S.S. Bajwa, Advocate, had filed written
statement on her behalf in the Court. She has engaged the
services of Shri Kapoor Singh, Advocate, on 22.11.2013 and he
told her about the dates fixed by the Court. She appeared in the
Court personally on 22.11.2013 in the Lower Court. There was
no occasion to appear personally in the Lower court on
22.11.2013 as ex-parte decree was already passed on
10.1.2013. She do not remember that on 22.11.2013 the suit
was adjourned to which date but again it is reiterated that on
22.11.2013 no civil suit against the appellant was pending. She
do not remember the date when Shri Kapoor Singh told her
about decision of the case. She had been contacting her counsel
Shri Kapoor Singh continuously after engaging him. So,
whatsoever has been stated by her that is against the facts on
the file which means that she is not aware of anything and she
has not given the date when she came to know about exparte
decree and what is source of her information that is also not
disclosed. From the bald assertions it cannot be ascertained
that when the applicant came to know about the exparte decree
2 of 4
and from which person she came to know about the same and
whether the application is within limitation from the date of her
knowledge that cannot be ascertained also. Moreover, from
perusal of Lower Court record it reveals that the
appellant/applicant had appeared through counsel before the
Lower Court and filed written statement and thereafter neither
counsel nor she herself appeared before the Lower Court and
was proceeded exparte. No instructions were not pleaded by
her previous counsel and no fresh notice to the
applicant/appellant was required to be given by the Court. So,
no ground is made out to condone the delay if approximately
315 days in filing the appeal as the applicant/appellant herself
is negligent in conducting her case before the Lower Court as
well as before this Appellate Court. Hence, there are no
sufficient grounds to condone the delay. Therefore, this issue is
decided against the applicant and in favour of the
respondents."
2. The petitioner claims the property on the basis of a sale deed
executed by the defendant No.2 on 01.07.2009. Her rights are subservient to
the prior agreement to sell executed in favour of the plaintiff dated
17.06.2003. The petitioner did not file any application under order IX Rule
13 CPC. She chose the remedy of filing of an appeal and that also with an
application for condonation of delay of more than 315 days. She has failed
to furnish any plausible explanation for the delay as noticed by the
Additional District Judge in para 12 of his order.
3 of 4
3. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to
interfere with the impugned order. Hence, the present revision petition is
dismissed.
(Anil Kshetarpal)
Judge
December 01, 2022
"DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
4 of 4
