Manjeet Singh vs Smt. Pritam Kaur & Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 973 UK

      IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND
                  AT NAINITAL

        THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI VIPIN SANGHI


               WRIT PETITION (M/S) NO. 1018 OF 2023


                             11TH APRIL, 2023

Between:

Harpreet Singh Kalia                         ......          Petitioner

and

Smt. Paramjeet Kaur & others                 ......         Respondents



Counsel for the petitioner      :       Mr. Ramji   Srivastava,   learned
                                        counsel

Counsel for the respondents         :   Ms. Monika Pant, learned counsel
                                        for respondent Nos. 1 to 3


The Court made the following:


JUDGMENT:

This petition is preferred to assail the orders

dated 12.07.2022, passed by the learned 5th Civil Judge

(Sr. Div.), Dehradun, in Original Suit No. 518 of 2011,

Manjeet Singh Vs Smt. Pritam Kaur & others, as well as

the order dated 05.01.2023, passed by the learned 8th

Additional District Judge, Derhadun, in Civil Revision No.

119 of 2022, Harpreet Singh Kalia Vs Manjeet Singh

Sudan (deceased) through L.Rs. & others.

2) By the first order, the application preferred by

the petitioner / defendant No. 3 under Order 9 Rule 7

CPC to set aside the ex parte proceedings against the

said defendant was dismissed on the ground of

inordinate delay in moving the application. By the

second order dated 05.01.2023, the revision preferred

by the petitioner / defendant No. 3 against the first

order, has been rejected.

3) The petitioner is defendant No. 3 in the

aforesaid suit. The petitioner was proceeded ex parte on

account of non-appearance of the petitioner / defendant

No. 3, and his counsel, on 05.12.2013. Admittedly, the

application for seeking setting aside of ex parte

proceedings was filed after eight years in the year 2021.

The only explanation furnished by the petitioner was that

he was pursuing other legal proceedings, and that his

Advocate, engaged by him to pursue the aforesaid suit,

has stopped appearing without instructions. The learned

trial court, as well the revisional court have not found

merit in the aforesaid grounds taken by the petitioner,

and in my view, rightly so. Merely because the

petitioner may have been pursuing other litigation was

no ground for him to not pursue the suit in question. It

is very convenient for the petitioner to put the blame on

his counsel for not appearing in the matter. In response

to a query by the Court, learned counsel submits that no

steps have been taken against the counsel before the

State Bar Council for professional misconduct, for

allegedly not appearing without instructions. Pertinently,

the same counsel was retained by the petitioner to

pursue the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. By

allowing the applications, the plaintiff could not be put to

grave prejudice, such that the suit is thrown back by

eight years.

4) Since, the impugned orders have been passed

by the courts below in exercise of jurisdiction vested in

them, and there is no grave injustice caused by the

passing of the said orders, I am not inclined to interfere

with the same.

5) The petition is, therefore, dismissed.

_________________ VIPIN SANGHI, C.J.

Dt: 11TH APRIL, 2023 Negi