Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohinder Singh vs Satnam Singh And Anr on 25 April, 2024
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057606
CR-2385-2024 1 . 2024:PHHC:057606
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
130 CR-2385-2024
DATE OF DECISION: 25.04.2024
Mohinder Singh ............Petitioner
VERSUS
Satnam Singh and another ..............Respondents
CORAM HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH
Present Mr.Raghav Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
***
GURBIR SINGH, J
1. Challenge in this revision petition is to the impugned order dated
06.03.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge (Jr.Divn), Pehowa, District Kurukshetra,
whereby, application for setting aside the exparte order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure
P-8), has been dismissed.
2. Brief facts culled out from the revision petition are that father of
respondent no.1 / plaintiff filed a suit for possession of the suit property and same was
decreed vide judgment and decree dated 19.07.2017 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner
assailed the said judgment and decree before the Appellate Court but the appeal was
dismissed. Father of the respondent no.1 transferred the suit property in his favour so
respondent no.1 filed the execution of the said judgment and decree. Summons were
issued to the petitioner for 16.11.2022 but the same were neither served nor he refused
to receive the summons. On the basis of false report procured on the summons,
petitioner was proceeded against exparte. In the third week of February, petitioner
came to know about the filing of the execution so he moved an application for setting
aside the exparte order dated 16.11.2022. Petitioner also moved objections regarding
the mode of partition. Reply of the said objection was already filed by respondent
no.1. Vide impugned order, the application for setting aside the exparte order was
dismissed but objections filed by petitioner has been taken on record.
1 of 2
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:057606
CR-2385-2024 2 . 2024:PHHC:057606
3. It is argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner
neither received nor refused to receive the summons and the Process Server was not
even known to the petitioner. Under the signature of the Chowkidar, no date and time
is mentioned when he put the signatures. There is no report regarding the
identification of the address of the petitioner.
4. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone
through the case file very carefully.
5. From the report, it is very much clear that petitioner refused to receive
the summons. The said report is also attested by Chowkidar of the village and in the
report itself it is mentioned that the petitioner refused to allow affixation of the
summons. So, there is no illegality in the impugned order passed by the learned
Executing Court. Moreover, the petitioner has filed objections on the report of the
Local Commissioner. In other words, the petitioner is allowed to join the proceedings
in the Execution and no prejudice has been caused to the petitioner. The exparte
proceedings are set aside to reverse the clock so that party is able to defend the case
but in execution there is no need to reverse the clock as rights of parties are already
decided. The Executing Court is bound to execute the decree in accordance with the
law.
6. Under such circumstances, this Court do not find any illegality or
perversity in the impugned order dated 06.03.2024, passed by learned Civil Judge
(Jr.Divn), Pehowa, District Kurukshetra dismissing the application for setting aside
the exparte order dated 16.11.2022.
7. No ground for interference is made out.
8. Dismissed in limine.
25.04.2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
mamta JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
2 of 2
