Wednesday, 03, Jun, 2026
 
 
 
Expand O P Jindal Global University
 
  
  
 
 
 

Ruldu vs Noora Etc
2024 Latest Caselaw 10519 P&H

Citation : 2024 Latest Caselaw 10519 P&H
Judgement Date : 1 July, 2024

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ruldu vs Noora Etc on 1 July, 2024

Author: Anil Kshetarpal

Bench: Anil Kshetarpal

                                        Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080923



RSA No.1987 of 1994 (O&M)               -1-


          IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                       AT CHANDIGARH

                                                 RSA No.1987 of 1994 (O&M)
                                                   Date of Order:01.07.2024

Ruldu
                                                                     .Appellant
                                     Versus

Noora (since deceased) throughg LRs and others
                                                                  ..Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANIL KSHETARPAL

Present: Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Sunny K.Singla, Advocate for respondents no.6 to 11.

ANIL KSHETARPAL, J

1. In this regular second appeal, defendant no.4, assails the

correctness of the judgment passed by the First Appellate Court.

2. In order to comprehend the issues involved in the present case,

the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed.

3. The plaintiff filed a suit for grant of decree of declaration that

the suit land is joint between the parties and the plaintiff is entitled to

declaration that he is the owner and in joint possession to the extent of 11/27

share and further restraining the defendants from alienating his share in any

manner.

4. All the parties to the litigation are heirs of a common ancestor

Sh. Khazana. In the aforesaid suit, as many as five defendants were made

party including the appellant Sh. Ruldu as defendant no.4. Defendant nos.1

and 3 admitted the plaintiff's claim, whereas defendant nos.2 to 4 were

proceeded against ex-parte. Defendant no.5 contested the suit. After the

1 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080923

issues were culled out, the parties were permitted to lead evidence. On

08.03.1989, the contesting defendant no.5 admitted the plaintiff's claim.

Consequently, an ex-parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff.

Defendant no.4 filed first appeal which has been dismissed primarily on the

ground that he was required to file an application under Order IX Rule 13

CPC. Though, the First Appellate Court has made some passing reference to

the merits of the case, however, primarily the appeal filed by the appellant

has been dismissed on the ground that he was required to file an application

under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

5. This Bench has heard the learned counsel representing the

parties at length and with their able assistance perused the paper book along

with the scanned copy of the digital record.

6. The learned counsel representing the appellant submits that the

defendant who was proceeded against ex-parte has multiple remedies

including filing of an appeal before the First Appellate Court if he wants to

challenge the judgment and decree of the trial court on merits. He submits

that the appeal filed by defendant who was proceeded against ex-parte shall

be maintainable under Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

Hence, the First Appellate Court has erred in dismissing the appellant's

appeal.

7. Per contra, the learned counsel representing the respondents

submits that some passing reference has been made by the First Appellate

Court on the merits of the case, however, after referring to the aforesaid

finding he admits that the First Appellate Court has dismissed the appeal on

maintainability.

2 of 3

Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:080923

8. This court has considered the submissions of the learned

counsel representing the parties.

9. The defendant who was proceeded against ex-parte in the trial

court has the remedy of filing an appeal if he wants to challenge the

judgment and decree of the trial court on merits. He also has a remedy to

file an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC to set aside the ex-parte

decree, however, his appeal on merits cannot be dismissed on the ground

that it is not maintainable.

10. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts and discussion, the

judgment passed by the First Appellate Court is set aside while remitting the

matter with direction to decide the appeal after considering the case of the

parties on merits. This appeal has remained pending for 30 years. Hence,

the First Appellate Court is requested to make sincere efforts for expeditious

disposal of the first appeal.

11. Disposed of accordingly.

12. The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before

the First Appellate Court on 23.07.2024.

13 All the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, are also

disposed of.

July 01, 2024                                         (ANIL KSHETARPAL)
nt                                                         JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned                 :YES/NO
Whether reportable                        :YES/NO




                                       3 of 3

 

 
Download the LatestLaws.com Mobile App
 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter
 

Publish Your Article

 

Campus Ambassador

 

Media Partner

 

Campus Buzz

 

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent

LatestLaws Guest Court Correspondent Apply Now!
 

LatestLaws.com presents: Lexidem Offline Internship Program, 2026

 

LatestLaws.com presents 'Lexidem Online Internship, 2026', Apply Now!

 
 

LatestLaws Partner Event : MAIMS

 
 
Latestlaws Newsletter