Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bhajan Lal Through His Lrs vs Kishan Through His Lrs And Others on 19 March, 2024
2024:PHHC:039755
C. R. No. 6785 of 2023 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
Sr. No.124
Case No. : C. R. No. 6785 of 2023
Date of Decision : March 19, 2024
Bhajan Lal (since deceased) through his LRs .... Petitioners
vs.
Kishan (since deceased) through his LRs
and others .... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURBIR SINGH.
* * *
Present : Mr.Abhilaksh Grover, Advocate
Ms.Khushboo Garg, Advocate
for the petitioners.
* * *
GURBIR SINGH, J. :
1. Challenge in the present revision petition filed under Article 227
of the Constitution of India is to the order dated 27.03.2017 (Annexure P-4),
passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Hodal
(hereinafter referred to as - Trial Court), dismissing the application dated
14.12.2009 (Annexure P-3), filed by the defendants under Order 9 Rule 13
CPC for setting aside the ex-parte order dated 19.07.2000 (Annexure P-1)
and ex-parte decree dated 11.08.2006 (Annexure P-2). Further challenge is
to the order dated 14.09.2022 (Annexure P-5), passed by learned District and
Sessions Judge, Palwal (hereinafter referred to as - Lower Appellate Court),
whereby the aforesaid order passed by learned Trial Court has been
affirmed.
2024:PHHC:039755
2. The brief facts, as culled out from the paper book, are that
petitioner/defendant Bhajan Lal and respondent/plaintiff Kishan were the
real brothers. The suit in question was filed on 02.02.1998 by plaintiff
Kishan. Defendant no.1 Bhajan Lal had already expired on 25.02.1998 i.e.
soon after filing of suit in question. During pendency of suit, legal heirs of
Bhajan Lal were brought on record. However, legal heirs of defendant no.1
Bhajan Lal were proceeded against ex-parte vide order dated 19.07.2000
(Annexure P-1) and the suit was partly decreed on 11.08.2006 (Annexure P-
2). An application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree has
been filed by legal representatives of defendant no.1 Bhajan Lal, which has
been dismissed by both the Courts below.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that petitioner/
defendant Bhajan Lal expired on 25.02.1998. The family was already in
shock as all of them were dependent upon Bhajan Lal. Then unfortunately,
son of Bhajan Lal namely Rajesh also died on 05.04.2000. It has further
been contended that no summons were ever received by family members of
deceased Bhajan Lal. They came to know about ex-parte decree dated
11.08.2006 (Annexure P-2) only on 02.12.2009 when they visited Halqa
Patwari to seek some information regarding pension. They moved
application dated 14.12.2009 (Annexure P-3) under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC,
which was dismissed by learned Trial Court on the ground that all the legal
heirs were of the same family and residing in the same house and it was
presumed that they were fully aware about the pendency of the suit.
2024:PHHC:039755
4. I have heard submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners and
perused the case file.
5. Record reveals that the suit in question was filed in the year 1998.
Ex-parte judgment and decree was passed on 11.08.2006. Defendant no.1
was ex-parte, whereas other defendants were appearing in the suit. Notice to
defendant no.1 (since deceased) was issued on 09.02.1998 and after his
death, legal representatives of defendant no.1 were also impleaded in the
suit. The Lower Appellate Court observed in its order dated 14.09.2022 that
after impleading legal representatives, notice to them was issued on
27.05.1999. Power of Attorney on behalf of his widow namely Rajjo was
filed on 12.08.1999. Since one of the legal representatives had appeared
before the Court below and Vakalatnama was also filed on her behalf, so
petitioners were restrained from taking the plea that they were not duly
served in the suit.
6. In case Lingeswaran etc. vs. Thirunagalingam reported as
2022(2) RCR (Civil) 319, it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court that the Court
has no power to extend the period of limitation on equitable grounds. The
statutory provision may cause hardship to a particular party but the Court
has no choice but to enforce it giving full effect to the same. Since petitioner
was having knowledge of pendency of suit, even if there was any irregularity
in the service of summons, then the same is not a ground to set aside the ex-
parte judgment and decree, in view of the proviso of Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.
7. In view of the above discussion, I find no illegality in the orders
2024:PHHC:039755
passed by both the Courts below, warranting interference by this Court.
8. Accordingly, the present revision petition is hereby dismissed
being devoid of any merit.
9. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of along with
this judgment.
March 19, 2024 (GURBIR SINGH)
monika JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned ? Yes/No.
Whether reportable ? Yes/No.
