Sunil Kumar vs Palwinder Singh
2023 Latest Caselaw 11490 P&H

                                                   Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:099643




                                              2023:PHHC:099643
211 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                  AT CHANDIGARH

                                              SAO-15-2019 (O&M)
                                              Date of decision: 01.08.2023
Sunil Kumar
                                               ..Appellant
            Versus

Palwinder Pal
                                              .Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present:- Mr. Anil Kumar Aggarwal, Advocate for the appellant

Mr. Deepak Arora, Advocate for the respondent

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J (Oral)

1. The appellant's application filed under Order IX Rule 13 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, has been dismissed by the trial court,

which, in appeal, has been affirmed by the Additional District Judge.

2. Some relevant facts are required to be noticed, in order to

comprehend the issue, which needs adjudication. A suit for the recovery

of Rs.4,93,683/- was filed. The appellant (defendant before the trial

court) entered appearance through his counsel. The learned counsel

appeared before the trial court on various dates of hearing. However, on

25.01.2011, neither the appellant nor his counsel was present, resulting in

an order passed by the court to proceed against him ex-parte. Ultimately,

the suit was decided on 24.04.2012 while passing a decree of

Rs.2,60,360/-. An application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of

Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as 'CPC') to set aside the

ex-parte judgment and decree was filed on 26.05.2012. The appellant

claimed that he had no knowledge about the ex-parte judgment. Both the

courts have dismissed the application while disbelieving the appellant.

                               1 of 2

                                                       Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:099643




SAO-15-2019 (O&M)                          2            2023:PHHC:099643

The correctness of the aforesaid orders has been challenged in this

appeal.

3. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length

and with their able assistance perused the paperbook. Learned counsel

representing the appellant submits that at the relevant time, the appellant

was busy before the Company Law Tribunal and hence, he could not

appear before the court. He submits that for the fault of the counsel, the

appellant should not be punished.

4. This Court has considered the submission. It is evident that

the appellant had continued to appear in the suit on various dates of

hearing. On 25.01.2011, neither the appellant nor his counsel appeared,

resulting in passing an order of proceeding ex-parte against the appellant.

Thereafter, the appellant never took any steps till 26.05.2012 i.e for a

period of one year and 4 months. The appellant had the knowledge of

the pendency of the suit. In such circumstances, the courts below, on

preponderance of probabilities, have come to a conclusion. Hence, no

ground to interfere is made out.

5. Dismissed.

6. The amount of Rs.2,60,000/- deposited pursuant to the

direction of the Court shall be remitted to the Executing Court for further

orders.

7. All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

01.08.2023                                       (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
rekha                                                 JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned :        Yes/No
Whether reportable :               Yes/No
                                                      Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:099643

                                  2 of 2