Allowed

Harjit Singh Deol v. Kaur Singh Grewal and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Feb 2012CR/4372/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this civil revision, the Punjab & Haryana High Court allowed the petitioner's application to set aside ex parte proceedings in a pending suit. Despite awareness of the suit for years, the petitioner failed to appear. The High Court set aside the lower court's dismissal and permitted the petitioner to contest, conditioning relief on payment of costs.

What did the court decide?

Set aside impugned order; allowed application to set aside ex parte proceedings; permitted petitioner to contest suit on payment of Rs 25,000 costs.

Harjit Singh Deol Vs Kaur Singh Grewal and… — Execution and Attachment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

Civil Revision No.4372 of 2010 (O&M)

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

Civil Revision No.4372 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : February 08, 2012

Harjit Singh Deol

....Petitioner

versus

Kaur Singh Grewal and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice L.N. Mittal

¶11

Present : Mr. ML Saggar, Senior Advocate with Mr. GS Brar, Advocate, for the petitioner

¶12

Mr. BBS Sobti, Advocate, for respondent No. 1

¶13

L.N. Mittal, J. (Oral)

¶14

CM No. 2893.CII of 2012

¶15

Allowed as prayed for.

¶16

CM No. 2894.CII of 2012

¶17

The application is allowed and Annexures R1 to R4 are taken on record subject to all just exceptions.

¶18

CR No. 4372 of 2010

¶19

Defendant no. 2 Harjit Singh Deol has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India assailing order dated 14.5.2010, Annexure P/1 passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior

¶20

Civil Revision No.4372 of 2010 (O&M)

¶21

-2-

¶22

Division), Ludhiana thereby dismissing application moved by defendant no. 2 for setting aside ex parte proceedings ordered against him on 8.5.2006 in suit instituted by respondent no. 1 – plaintiff against petitioner and proforma respondents.

¶23

Defendant no. 2 – petitioner alleged in the application that he was never served in the suit and he has been wrongly proceeded ex parte. It was also pleaded that defendant no. 2 has been contesting the mutation proceedings and therefore, there was no question of not contesting the suit.

¶24

Respondent no. 1 – plaintiff opposed the aforesaid application of defendant no. 2 and raised various grounds.

¶25

Learned trial court vide impugned order Annexure P/1 dismissed the application of defendant no. 2 - petitioner who has, therefore, filed the instant revision petition.

¶26

I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

¶27

case file.

¶28

Counsel for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was not served in the suit. It was also contended that there is no limitation period for filing application for setting aside ex parte proceedings and delay alone cannot be ground to dismiss the application of defendant no. 2 and even otherwise, during the interregnum, no substantial proceedings took place in the suit and there was no delay in proceedings of the suit on account of non appearance of defendant no. 2.

¶29

On the other hand, counsel for respondent no. 1 – plaintiff

¶30

Civil Revision No.4372 of 2010 (O&M)

¶31

-3-

¶32

contended that defendant no. 2 petitioner was aware of the pendency of the suit as well as the dates of hearing therein as is evident from orders Annexure R/1 dated 30.4.2007 and Annexure R/2 dated 1.12.2005 passed in mutation proceedings by Collector and Assistant Collector respectively.

¶33

I have considered the rival contentions. From orders Annexures R/1 and R/2, it becomes apparent that as early as in December, 2005 when order Annexure R/2 was passed, petitioner no. 2 was aware of the pendency of the instant suit. This fact is also evident from order Annexure R/1 passed by the Collector. However, inspite thereof, defendant no. 2 – petitioner did not appear in the suit and allowed himself to be proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 8.5.2006 and moved present application on 9.8.2009 i.e. after more than three years.

¶34

However, suit is still pending. No effective proceedings took place in the suit in the absence of the petitioner. Normally a party should not be defeated by default. Keeping in view the same, in the instant case, ends of justice would be met if defendant no. 2 petitioner is allowed to contest the suit on payment of heavy costs. Default by defendant no. 2 – petitioner is evident because in spite of being aware of the suit since before he was proceeded against ex parte in the suit, he allowed himself to be proceeded ex parte and moved application for setting aside ex parte proceedings more than three years thereafter.

¶35

In view of the aforesaid, the instant revision petition is allowed. Impugned order Annexure P/1 passed by learned trial court is set aside and

¶36

Civil Revision No.4372 of 2010 (O&M)

¶37

-4-

¶38

application moved by defendant no. 2 – petitioner for setting aside ex parte proceedings ordered against him on 8.5.2006 is allowed and petitioner no. 2 is permitted to contest the suit subject to payment of Rs 25,000/- as costs precedent.

¶39

The trial court shall decide the suit expeditiously as early as

¶40

possible.

¶41

( L.N. Mittal ) February 08, 2012 Judge 'dalbir'

Harjit Singh Deol v. Kaur Singh Grewal and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Harjit Singh Deol v. Kaur Singh Grewal and Ors.

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

Hoshiar Singh Vs Tehsildar (Sales) and Ors.

Sadhu Singh and Others Vs Bhupinder Singh and Another

M/S Snow White Dry Cleaners and Others Vs Neena Jauhar and Others

Pritpaul Kaur @ Preeti Kohli Vs Paramjit Singh Kohli

Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. Vs Bar Association, Ludhiana and Another

Satnam Singh Vs Rajbior Singh and Ors.