Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rahul Sachdeva vs Tarvinder Pal Singh And Ors on 4 January, 2023
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No.5510 of 2022
Date of Decision: 04.01.2023
Rahul Sachdeva
...Revisionist-Petitioner
Versus
Tarvinder Pal Singh & Others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA
Argued by:- Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate,
for the revisionist-petitioner.
****
MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA, J.
By way of the instant revision petition, the petitioner-
defendant No.4-applicant (here-in-after to be referred as 'the applicant')
has assailed the order dated 12.12.2016 (Annexure P-2) passed by learned
Civil Judge (Senior Division), Amritsar (for short 'the trial Court'),
whereby the application moved by him and his co-applicant-defendant
No.3 under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC with a prayer to
set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 31.01.2011, has been
dismissed and he (applicant) has also laid challenge to the judgment dated
14.09.2022 (Annexure P-4), handed down by learned Additional District
Judge, Amritsar, (for short 'the Appellate Court'), dismissing the appeal
preferred by him against order Annexure P-2.
2. Shorn and short of unnecessary details, the facts, culminating
in the filing of the present revision petition, are that respondent No.1-
plaintiff (here-in-after to be referred as 'the plaintiff') filed a Civil Suit
1 of 5
against the applicant and his co-defendants for seeking a decree for
possession of the suit property by way of specific performance of the
agreement to sell dated 01.05.2006 or in the alternative, for the recovery of
the amount of Rs. four(04) lac and all the defendants, including the
applicant, were proceeded against ex-parte therein. Vide the above-said
judgment and the decree, the Suit was decreed against the applicant and his
co-applicant for the recovery of the sum of Rs.4 lac, along-with the interest
thereon. Then, they filed the afore-referred application with the prayer to
set aside the said judgment and decree and the same has been dismissed by
the trial Court vide the order Annexure P-2 and the appeal, as preferred by
the applicant against this order, has also been dismissed by the Appellate
Court vide the judgment Annexure P-4.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the applicant-defendant No.4
in this revision petition, at the preliminary stage and have also perused the
file carefully.
4. Learned counsel for the applicant has contended that the
applicant came to know about the above-mentioned judgment and decree
for the first time, on 08.10.2012 when the Bailiff came to his office for
executing the warrant of attachment qua the suit property and immediately
thereafter, he and his co-applicant moved the said application which bears
the date 17.10.2012 but the same was filed in the trial Court on 24.07.2013
and hence, the said delay on the part of their counsel cannot be attributed to
the applicant so as to deprive him from contesting the afore-said Civil Suit
on merits but the trial Court and the Appellate Court have wrongly held
2 of 5
this application to be time barred. Secondly, he has contended that the
applicant and his co-applicant were never duly served the summonses in
the said Suit and rather, the plaintiff had procured the false reports from the
concerned Process-Server qua the service of the same upon them and in
these circumstances, the impugned order and the judgment are not legally
sustainable and therefore, the same deserve to be set aside. To buttress his
contentions, he has placed reliance upon Radha Krishna Rai vs. Allahabad
Bank and others, Civil Appeal No. 4683 of 1999, {Arising out of SLP (C)
No.18341 of 1998} Decided on 23.08.1999 (SC); Chhabi Kulavi vs.
Ganesh Chandra Mondal, Civil Appeal No.7371 of 2000 {Arising out of
SLP (C) No.11224 of 2000} Decided on 14.12.2000 (SC); Ram Nath Sao
@ Ram Nath Sahu vs. Gobardhan Sao, Civil Appeal No.1704 of 2002
{Arising out of SLP (C) No.6496 of 2001} Decided on 27.02.2002 (SC)
and M/s Jersey Developers (P) Limited & Ors. Vs. Canara Bank, Civil
Appeal No.2708 of 2022 Decided on 13.04.2022 (SC).
5. However, the above-raised contentions are bereft of any merit
because so far as the observations made by the Courts below regarding the
afore-mentioned application being time barred, are concerned, it is worth-
while to mention here that as per the version of the applicant himself, he
got the knowledge regarding the above-said ex-parte judgment and decree,
for the first time, on 08.10.2012 but however, as mentioned in Para No.13
in the impugned judgment, the said application was filed on 24.07.2013, i.e
about 9½ months thereafter. Though, learned counsel for the applicant has
tried to explain the said delay before this Court by contending that the same
3 of 5
had occurred due to the lapse on the part of the counsel representing the
applicant in the trial Court but it is again pertinent to point it out here that
in the same Para in the judgment, the Appellate Court has specifically
observed that the said delay had not been explained even during the course
of the arguments in the appeal and that no application had been moved
under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, for seeking the condonation thereof.
It being so, it is quite explicit that the said application has rightly been held
to be time barred. The observations made by Hon'ble Supreme Court in
Radha Krishna Rai (supra), Chhabi Kulavi (supra) and Ram Nath Sao @
Ram Nath Sahu (supra), are not of much avail to the applicant because in
all the afore-cited cases, the applications had been moved under Section 5
of the Limitation Act for seeking condonation of the delay, while
explaining the reasons for the same whereas in the present case, no such
application has been filed by the applicant, as mentioned above.
6. Further, even if for the sake of arguments, it is presumed that
the above-said application had been filed within the prescribed period of
limitation, even then the second contention regarding the trial Court having
erroneously proceeded ex-parte against the applicant, does not hold much
water because both the Courts below have categorically mentioned in the
impugned order and judgment that while appearing as AW-1, the applicant
had admitted that six more cases, as filed by the different parties, were also
pending against him and he had received the summons in all those cases at
the address as mentioned in the said Suit and that the addresses given by
him in the application and as mentioned in the Suit are also the same and to
4 of 5
add to it, the Appellate Court has pointed out in Para No.14 in its judgment
that while deposing as AW1, the applicant had mentioned the same address
in his affidavit also. Further, the trial Court has observed in para No.10 in
its order (Annexure P-2) that as per the report on the summons issued to the
applicant, he had refused to receive the same and his co-applicant was also
reported to have avoided the service of the summons issued to him and
hence, the summonses were affixed on the doors of their houses and even
thereafter, 'munadi' was ordered and was duly effected, before passing the
order to proceed ex-parte against them. In such circumstances, the said
order cannot be construed to be erroneous at all. The observations made by
Hon'ble Apex Court in M/s Jersey Developers (P) Limited & Ors. (supra)
also do not help the applicant because in the afore-said case, the Directors
of the Company had been staying in USA for the last 40 years and the
summonses were sent at the address at Chennai and the same were returned
unclaimed whereas in this case, the applicant was, admittedly, residing at
the address as mentioned in the Suit, at the relevant time.
7. In view of the fore-going discussion, this Court is of the
considered opinion that the impugned order and the judgment do not suffer
from any illegality, infirmity, irregularity or perversity so as to warrant any
interference by this Court. Resultantly, the revision petition in hand, being
sans any merit, stands dismissed.
(MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA)
th
04 January, 2023. JUDGE
seema Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes
Whether Reportable: Yes
5 of 5
