Allowed

M/S H.N. Traders v. Rashmi Kukreja

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Sept 2011CR/3476/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed revision petition setting aside orders that dismissed an application to set aside an ex parte decree. Court directed trial court to retry suit on merits with costs deposit and three opportunities for evidence.

What did the court decide?

Impugned orders dated 9.12.2005 and 7.12.2010 set aside; trial court to proceed with suit after costs deposit and affording three opportunities for evidence.

M/S H.N. Traders Vs Rashmi Kukreja — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

CR No.3476 of 2011 [1]

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Revision No.3476 of 2011

¶4

Date of Decision: 16 - 9 - 2011

M/s H.N.Traders

....Petitioner

Rashmi Kukreja ....Respondent

¶9

CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

¶10

¶11

Present: Mr.Puneet Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondent.

¶13

¶14

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

¶15

The present revision petition has been filed for setting aside order dated 9.12.2005, Annexure P5, whereby the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9, Rule 13, read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 24.2.2003 was set aside. The impugned order dated 9.12.2005, Annexure P5 was made subject matter of appeal. The lower Appellate Court vide order dated 7.12.2010, Annexure P7, has also dismissed the appeal and upheld the order dated 9.12.2005, Annexure P5.

¶16

Petitioner-defendant had filed an application, Annexure P4, on 21.3.2003. In that application, it was stated that respondent-plaintiff had

¶17

CR No.3476 of 2011 [2]

¶18

instituted a suit for recovery of Rs.54,000/-. In this case, the last date of hearing was fixed as 4.2.2003. The suit was contested and the written statement was filed by the petitioner-defendant. The case was fixed for evidence of the respondent-plaintiff on 4.2.2003. On that date, no witness of the respondent-plaintiff was present. It is stated that petitioner-defendant was informed by the counsel that since witnesses of the respondentplaintiff's were not present, case stand adjourned to 15.3.2003. When the petitioner-defendant was present in Court, he learnt that ex parte judgment and decree have already been passed on 24.2.2003.

¶19

After hearing counsel for the parties, it is apparent that once the petitioner-defendant was proceeded against ex parte, the matter was not posted for recording of evidence later and in a very hurried manner, the suit was decreed. Entire process from proceeding against the petitioner ex parte, recording of evidence and decision of suit, was concluded within twenty days. Furthermore, application for setting aside ex parte decree was filed within a period of less than one month is sufficient to conclude that petitioner had noted wrong date.

¶20

Counsel for the petitioner has further submitted that be that as it may, an opportunity be granted to the petitioner-defendant to contest the suit on merits. Counsel states that even if he had noted a wrong date and decision of the suit on merits has been delayed, he is ready to compensate the respondent-plaintiff in monetary terms.

¶21

In view of the very fair stand taken by counsel for the petitioner-defendant, the present revision petition is allowed. The impugned order dated 9.12.2005, Annexure P5, and order dated 7.12.2010, Annexure P7, are set aside. However, the petitioner-defendant is burdened

¶22

CR No.3476 of 2011 [3]

¶23

with costs of Rs.10,000/-. On deposit of the costs, the trial Court shall proceed ahead with the suit and decide the same after affording three effective opportunities to both the parties to lead their evidence. The parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 17.10.2011.

¶24

( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA ) September 16, 2011. JUDGE

¶25

M/S H.N. Traders v. Rashmi Kukreja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S H.N. Traders v. Rashmi Kukreja

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Balwinder Kaur Vs Ranjit Kaur and Ors.

Joginder Kaur Vs Chaitanya Kochar

Mam Kaur and Anr. Vs M/S True Zone Buildwell Pvt. Ltd.

Mukhtiar Singh and Ors. Vs Nachhattar Singh and Ors.

Gauri Shankar Vs Jagbir Singh & Ors.

Yatish Kumar Goel Vs Mool Chand Birla and Another