This revision petition sought to set aside a lower court order dismissing an application to set aside an ex parte decree against an NRI petitioner. The Court held the dismissal was correct and disposed of the petition.
The petition was dismissed in limine as it was without merit.
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.
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh
Civil Revision No. 3061 of 2016
Date of Decision: 02.05.2016
Ranjit Kaur
... Petitioner(s)
Versus
Harpal Singh and Others
... Respondent(s)
| CORAM: | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shekher Dhawan. | |
|---|---|---|
| 1. | Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment? |
Yes |
| 2 | To be referred to reporters or not? | |
| 3 | Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? |
Yes |
| Present: | Mr. Tribhawan Singla, Advocate for the petitioner(s). |
Shekher Dhawan, J.
Present petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India to set aside order dated 15.2.2016, passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) (NRI Cases), Jalandhar, whereby application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, filed by defendant No.14/petitioner for setting aside the ex parte proceedings against her, was dismissed.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that petitioner is residing outside India i.e. Melbourne (Australia) and she was never served at the address given. Petitioner had filed an application for setting aside the ex parte order and the application was dismissed vide
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2016.05.05 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Civil Revision No. 3061 of 2016
2
impugned order dated 15.2.2016 and the same is liable to be set aside.
Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner; perusal of the record of the case and the impugned order, this Court is of the considered view that the Court below has already considered that the matter relates to the year 2006. Notice was duly sent to the present petitioner (defendant No.14). Thereafter, petitioner was served through substituted service by way of publication at the last known address, which was requirement of the law and as such ex parte order dated 16.1.2007 was passed by the Court below and the application under Order 9 Rule 7 CPC, having been filed by the petitioner on 3.2.2016, was rightly dismissed by the Court below.
Accordingly, present petition is without any merit and the
same stands dismissed, in limine.
(Shekher Dhawan) Judge
May 02, 2016 “DK”
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2016.05.05 10:27 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the lower court's dismissal of an application to set aside an ex parte order.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Ranjit Kaur
Harpal Singh and Others
Shekher Dhawan
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
