Punjab-Haryana High Court
Paramjit Kaur And Ors vs Parvinder Singh And Ors on 4 March, 2024
Author: Anil Kshetarpal
Bench: Anil Kshetarpal
119 2024:PHHC:030378
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
1. Civil Revision No. 2749 of 2021
Paramjit Kaur and Others
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Parvinder Singh and Others
... Respondent(s)
AND
2. Civil Revision No. 2754 of 2021 (O&M)
Paramjit Kaur and Others
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Parvinder Singh and Others
... Respondent(s)
DATE OF DECISION: 04.03.2024
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.
Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate
for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Akshit Aggarwal, Advocate
for respondent No.1 to 3.
Anil Kshetarpal, J.
1. These two revision petitions have been filed by the petitioners
(the plaintiffs) assailing the correctness of two detailed orders passed by the
Trial Court while allowing two different applications filed under Order IX
Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as
"CPC") for setting aside the ex parte decree.
2. In order to comprehend the issue involved in the present case,
the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. The petitioners filed a
civil suit for grant of decree of declaration that the sale deed executed by
2024:PHHC:030378
Civil Revision No. 2754 of 2021 (O&M)
defendant No.4 in favour of defendant No.1 to 3 on 25.05.2009 with respect
to the land measuring 96 kanals and 15 marlas, is illegal. Gurvinder Singh
was impleaded as defendant No.2. In fact, grandmother (Surjit Kaur) along
with her two grand children were impleaded as defendant No.1 to 3. In the
aforesaid suit, the defendants entered into appearance. However,
subsequently, their Advocate stopped appearing and it resulted in ex parte
judgment and decree dated 21.02.2015. Two different applications were filed
to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree. Defendant No.2 (Gurvinder
Singh) claimed that he was a minor and without appointing any guardian on
his behalf, the Trial Court proceeded ex parte against him and ultimately
passed the decree. Defendant No.1 to 3 filed a separate application claiming
that they became aware of the ex parte judgment and decree from defendant
No.2. Both the applications were allowed by the Trial Court. It was found
that defendant No.2 was a minor and he was not represented by a Guardian-
ad litem. In fact, he was reflected in the memo of parties as an adult.
3. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties, at length and
with their able assistance, perused the paper-book along with the
requisitioned record.
4. The learned counsel representing the petitioners contends that
the birth certificate (Ex.P2) has been manipulated by the defendants in order
to secure a favourable order. He further submits that the birth certificate has
been issued in the year 2011 after getting an entry made in the office of the
Chief Registrar, Births and Deaths, Punjab, in the same year. He further
submits that the application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and
decree was filed after a passage of nearly five months from the date of
decree, whereas the application is required to be filed within a period of 30
days.
5. This Court has considered the submissions made by the learned
counsel representing the parties.
6. The petitioners have not led any evidence to prove that the birth
certificate issued by the competent authority is erroneous. Merely because
the date of birth has been got registered in the year 2011 is not sufficient to
2024:PHHC:030378
Civil Revision No. 2754 of 2021 (O&M)
discard the certificate. The petitioners were required to rebut the evidence
led by the respondents.
7. In any case, the Trial Court has found that the respondents have
not been given a proper opportunity to contest the case. The dispute is with
regard to nearly more than 12 acres of agricultural land. They purchased the
property vide a registered sale deed which was decreed illegal by virtue of
an ex parte decree. In these circumstances, the respondents have been
granted an opportunity to contest the case on merits. The aforesaid
conclusion drawn by the Trial Court does not suffer from any material error.
8. Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to
interfere with the impugned orders. Hence, both the revision petitions are
dismissed.
9. The miscellaneous application(s) pending, if any, in both the
revision petitions shall stand disposed of.
(Anil Kshetarpal)
Judge
March 01, 2024
"DK"
Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
