Single judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court dismissed a civil revision challenging the non-interference in an order rejecting an application to set aside an ex parte decree. The court held the petitioner intended to withhold himself from proceedings.
The civil revision was dismissed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Civil Revision No.1697 of 2009 [ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
...
Civil Revision No.1697 of 2009
Decided on : March 26, 2009
Ranjit Singh
... Petitioner
VERSUS
Naurata Ram and others
... Respondents
CORAM :
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: Mr.Ashok Khubbar, Advocate for the petitioner.
- A.N.JINDAL, J.
Heard.
The collusive decree challenged in this case was allegedly suffered by Naurata Ram – respondent/plaintiff (herein referred as respondent') in favour of Ranjit Singh – petitioner/defendant (herein referred as petitioner') on 4.8.1990. Now, the decree has been challenged by the respondent on the ground of fraud and misrepresentation on 4.4.1991. However, it was contested by the petitioner that later on, he was proceeded against exparte on 26.11.1997 and ultimately, an exparte decree was passed in favour of Naurata Ram – respondent on 12.10.1999 (Annexure P-3). The petitioner (defendant in the suit) filed an application for setting aside the exparte decree on
Civil Revision No.1697 of 2009 [ 2 ]
23.12.1999, which was dismissed on vide order dated 26.3.2007 (Annexure P-1). The appeal against the said order was also dismissed vide order dated 27.8.2008 (Annexure P-2).
Since the petitioner went absent after the issues were framed and the case was fixed for evidence, therefore, the petitioner was well aware of the pending proceedings and exparte decree passed against him. He appears to have intentionally withheld himself from the proceedings and allowed the exparte decree to be passed against him. The courts below have scrutinised the evidence and concurrently found insufficient grounds to set aside the exparte decree.
No grounds to interfere.
Dismissed.
March 26, 2009 ( A.N.JINDAL ) `gian' JUDGE
Ranjit Singh
Naurata Ram and others
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
