Gurbax Singh (Deceased) Through Lr vs Kewal Singh And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 20911 P&H

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurbax Singh (Deceased) Through Lr vs Kewal Singh And Others on 2 December, 2023

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153602




           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                        AT CHANDIGARH
119                                                         2023:PHHC:153602

                                                    CR-5333-2022
                                                    Date of decision: 02.12.2023

GURBAX SINGH (DECEASED) THROUGH LR                          ..Petitioner

                                    Versus

KEWAL SINGH AND OTHERS                                      ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL
Present:     Mr. Rishav Jain, Advocate
             for the petitioner.

             None for respondent No.1.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J(Oral)

1. The respondent (plaintiff herein) filed a suit for possession by

way of specific performance of the agreement to sell with a consequential

relief of permanent injunction. During the pendency of the suit, the

petitioner was served with a notice and he appeared through his counsel and

filed a written statement. Thereafter, he abesented, resulting in ex parte

judgment and decree dated 15.01.2009.

2. The petitioner filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 of

the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, in the year 2015, which was dismissed

on 01.02.2016. Again, the petitioner did not take any step nearly for a period

of one and a half year. He filed first appeal against the order passed by the

trial Court while dismissing his application under Order IX Rule 13 of the

Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, along with an application for condonation of

delay of 644 days. The aforesaid application has been dismissed by the

Court. The petitioner has alleged that his counsel did not disclose about the

fact that the suit has been dismissed in default.

1 of 2

Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153602

2023:PHHC:153602

3. The trial Court has dismissed the application on the ground that

the petitioner has failed to show sufficient cause for condonation of delay.

4. It is evident that at every stage, the petitioners have been

committing default in prosecuting the case. In the beginning, they did not

contest the suit, resulting in ex parte judgment and decree. After a period of

6 years, they filed application for setting aside ex parte decree, which was

dismissed on 01.02.2016. Again, the appellants filed an application for

condoning the delay of 644 days in filing the first appeal.

5. In view of the facts and discussion, no ground to interfere is

made out.

6. Dismissed accordingly.

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

disposed of.

December 02nd, 2023                                   (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
Ay                                                         JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned         :      Yes/No
Whether reportable                :      Yes/No




                                                           Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:153602

                                        2 of 2