Prem Singh vs Agnivesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 15779 P&H

CR-5671-2022 (O&M)                                                        -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH

                                CR-5671-2022 (O&M)
                                Date of decision: 05.12.2022

Prem Singh
                                                                ...Petitioner
                   Versus

Agnivesh

                                                              ...Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S. MADAAN

Present:     Mr. Ajay Vijarania, Advocate for the petitioner.

                                *****

H.S. MADAAN, J. (Oral)

Briefly stated facts of the case are that plaintiff Agnivesh had

filed a suit for recovery of Rs.1,55,000/- against defendant Prem Singh

which was pending in the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.) Charkhi Dadri.

That suit had been filed on 14.08.2013. Notice of that suit was given to

defendant, who was reported to have refused to accept service taking it as

due service. Since he did not put in appearance, he was proceeded against

ex parte, vide order dt. 16.05.2014. After recording ex parte evidence, the

suit of the plaintiff was decreed, vide judgment and decree dt.

24.05.2014. Subsequently, the defendant appeared and filed an

application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte

judgment and decree dt. 24.05.2014, contending that he was never served

in the case in accordance with law inasmuch as he had not received

notice, summons or registered letter. The report of refusal on the summon

1 of 4

CR-5671-2022 (O&M) -2-

by the process server is wrong and had been manipulated by the plaintiff

in collusion with process server. On 25.01.2014, the applicant/defendant

was present in Court at Pilani Court in connection with a complaint under

Section 427 IPC titled as 'Prem Singh Vs. Dharampal' since his presence

there was necessary. He had come to know about the ex parte judgment

and decree a week prior to by filing an application when his uncle Hari

Ram informed his telephonically in that regard.

2. Notice of the application was given to the

respondent/plaintiff who filed reply contesting the application, stating

that since the applicant had failed to appear despite service, he was

rightly proceeded against ex parte and then suit had been properly

decreed, vide ex parte judgment and decree dt. 24.05.2014 and

application has been filed only to delay the execution of the decree. For

proper adjudication of the controversy between the parties, following

issues had been framed, vide order dt. 11.01.2016:-

1. Whether the ex parte judgment and decree dt. 24.04.2014 can be set aside? OPA

2. Whether the defendant has no locus standi to file the present application? OPR

3. Whether the present application is not maintainable in the present form? OPR

4. Whether the defendant is estopped by his own act and conduct from filing the present application? OPR

5. Relief.

3. Parties were afforded adequate opportunities to lead

evidence in support of their respective claims.

4. After hearing arguments, vide detailed order dt. 13.11.2017,

2 of 4

CR-5671-2022 (O&M) -3-

the trial Court dismissed the application.

5. The applicant/defendant preferred an appeal against that

order before District Judge, Charkhi Dadri which was assigned to Addl.

District Judge, Charkhi Dadri, who vide order dt. 14.01.2020 dismissed

the same.

6. Now the applicant/defendant has approached this Court by

way of filing the present revision petition.

7. I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist besides going

through the record and I find that the revision petition is absolutely

without any merit. Both the Courts below by properly analyzing the

evidence adduced by the parties in view of the settled position,

considering the facts and circumstances of the case have come to the

conclusion that the revisionist/defendant was duly served inasmuch as he

had refused to accept the service, considering that report of refusal to be

proper service and he having not appeared in the Court, he was proceeded

against ex parte and after recording ex parte evidence, suit of the plaintiff

had been decreed way-back on 24.05.2014. The application for setting

aside the ex parte judgment and decree was hopelessly time barred, since

it was required to be filed within 30 days of passing of ex parte judgment

and decree whereas the application was filed on 03.07.2014 much beyond

that period. The applicant had not moved any application under Section 5

of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay, therefore, the applicant

could not clear the bar of limitation provided under the Limitation Act

and on merits also, he was unable to furnish any convincing explanation

that he was not duly served in this case and his non-appearance in the

3 of 4

CR-5671-2022 (O&M) -4-

Court was not intentional or willful.

8. I do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders passed

by the Courts below which might have called for interference by this

Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction. The defendant has

successfully dragged the proceedings for a period of more than eight

years, denying the plaintiff/decree holder an opportunity of reaping fruit

of the decree in his favour. Allowing of application would amount to

putting the clock back, having a fresh trial, in that way, the

revisionist/defendant would be successful in delaying the matter. Further

for that reason and also on merits, the revision petition is doomed for

failure and is dismissed accordingly.

05.12.2022                                          (H.S. MADAAN)
sumit.k                                                 JUDGE

             Whether speaking/reasoned :      Yes          No
             Whether Reportable :             Yes          No




                                 4 of 4