Mala Rani Vs Pankaj Kumari and Others

Present petition has bee n filed under Article 227 of th e Constitution o f India for setting aside impug n ed judgment dated 23.01.202 5 passed by L d . District Judge, Panchkula w hereby the appeal filed b y petitioner u n der Section 96 CPC against the order dated 23.10.202 4 Annexure P- 3 passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Panchkula , dismissing th e application under Order 9 rul e 7 & 13 read with section 15 1 CPC filed by the petitioner for setting a s ide ex parte judgment dated 24.04.2014 A n nexure P-1, was dismissed.

¶14

Learned counsel for the p e titioner inter alia submits tha t the petitioner was unable to appear before t h e learned Courts below as bot h her sons had expired. As such, she was in gr e at mental agony and unable t o pursue the li t igation. On a Court query, lea r ned counsel for the petitione r

¶15

SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

Page 2 of 6

¶17

informs that t he first son of the petitioner h ad expired on 26.07.2010; and her second s o n had expired on 02.03.2013. It is accordingly prayed that th e present petiti o n be allowed, and the impugn e d orders be set aside.

¶18

No other argument is mad e on behalf of the petitioner.

¶19

I have heard learned c o unsel for the petitioner and

¶20

perused the c a se file in great detail.

¶21

I find no merit in the sub m issions made on behalf of th e petitioner. Brief facts of the case are that r e spondent No.1 is the wife an d respondent No.2 is the daughter of deceas e d Devender Kumar Ranga. Th e petitioner is the mother of deceased Dev e nder Kumar Ranga. After th e demise of sai d Devender Kumar Ranga on 26.7.2010, the said respondent s had filed a p e tition under Section 372 of t h e Indian Succession Act, 192 5 (hereinafter r eferred to as “the Act”) for g rant of Succession Certificat e concerning t h e debts and service benefits o f Devender Kumar Ranga. Th e petitioner was not made a party to the a b ove said petition filed by th e respondents u nder Section 372 of the Act. A s such, the petitioner had file d an applicatio n seeking impleadment in the a bove said petition; which wa s allowed by the learned trial Court making th e petitioner respondent No.4 i n the above sai d proceeding.

¶22

However, on 11.09.2013, n one had appeared on behalf o f the petition e r. As such, she was procee d ed against ex parte. In th e meantime, vi d e ex parte judgment dated 2 4.04.2014 (Annexure P1), th e

¶23

SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶24

Page 3 of 6

¶25

Succession P e tition filed by the respondents was partly allowed and it wa s directed that “... The requisite succession c e rtificate regarding the servic e benefits of Sh . Devender Kumar Ranga (since d eceased) be issued in favour o f the petitioner s . The share of the minor petiti o ner no. 2 would be collected b y the petitione r no. 1 being her natural moth e r and custodian and would b e invested by h e r in the fixed deposit, to be o p ened in the name of the mino r petitioner, w h ich would be released to the m i nor after she attains the age o f maturity. Ho w ever, remaining relief as sought by the petitioners regardin g succession c e rtificate qua the maturity va l ue of the LIC policies stand s declined. The requisite court fee on the am o unt of b enefits and Indemnit y Bond in the li k e amount be paid by the petiti o ners as per their proportionat e share. The re q uisite be done on behalf of min o r by the petitioner no. 1….” 7. Almost 3 years there a fter, the petitionerfiled a n

¶26

application d a ted 02.07.2016 (Annexure P2) u nder Order 9 Rules 7 & 13 read with Section 1 51 CPC for setting aside the o rder dated 11.09.2013 and e x parte judgment dated 24.04.2014.Perusal o f Annexure P2 reveals that th e petitioner ha d sought the setting aside o f order dated 11.09.2013 and judgment dat e d 24.04.2014 on the ground t h at though the petitioner was i n regular touch with her counsel, however, in 2 0 12 her counsel was selected a s Judicial Offic e r and petitioner was told that the matter would now b e conducted by her younger brother/Aditya Y a dav. Thereafter, the petitione r had even con t acted Aditya Yadav.However, in the meantime, her younger so n

¶27

SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶28

Page 4 of 6

¶29

had also passed away in an accident on 02. 0 3.2013 due to which she wen t into deep sh o ck. Despite that the petition e r made several calls to Adity a Yadav who w a s not responding to calls of the petitioner. Certified copy of th e judgment dat e d 24.04.2014 was provided to the petitioner and her husban d by Aditya Yadav only on 04.06.2016 wherea f ter the petitioner had filed th e application d a ted 02.07.2016 (Annexure P2) u nder Order 9 Rules 7 & 13 read with Section 1 51 CPC for setting aside the o rder dated 11.09.2013 and e x parte judgme n t dated 24.04.2014.

¶30

The respondents contest e d the application filed by th e petitioner by s tating that the petitioner had b een regularly appearing befor e the learned t r ial Court and had deliberately n ot appeared on 11.09.2013. O n the basis of p l eadings of the parties, the lear n ed trial Court framed followin g issues vide or d er dated 04.09.2023:-

¶31

“ 1 . Whether the exparte ord e r dated 11.09.2013 and th e e x parte judgment and decree d a ted 24.04.2014 are liable to b e s e t aside?OPA 2. Whether the application is not maintainable in the presen t f o rm ?OPR.

¶32

3. Whether the applicant/resp o ndent No. 4 has got no locu s s t andi to file the present applica t ion? OPR 4. Whether the applicant/respo n dent No. 4 has concealed th e t r ue and material facts from t h e Court, if so, to what effect ? O PR.

¶33

5. Relief.”

¶34

SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶35

Page 5 of 6

¶36

The said application of the petitioner was dismissed by th e learned trial C ourt vide order dated 23.10.20 2 4 (Annexure P3).

¶37

Against the said order, t h e petitioner had filed appea l dated 20.11. 2 024 bearing no. CA/104/202 4 titled as "Pankaj Kumari an d Another vs. General Public and Others",u nde r Section 96 CPC (Annexure P4). The said app e al of the petitioner was also d i smissed by the learned Distric t Judge, Panch k ula vide impugned order dated 23.01.2025.

¶38

The only submission mad e on behalf of the petitioner fo r non-appeara n ce on 11.09.2013 and thereaft e r, is that she was in deep shoc k due to the demise of her son on 02.03.2013 . No doubt, this Court has dee p sympathy for the tragedy suffered by the petitioner. However, it is the ow n case of the p etitioner that she had been r egularly appearing before th e learned trial Court and had been unable t o appear only on 11.09.2013. Moreover, th e petitioner has admitted in her cross-examination as AW1 tha t her husband P artap Singh Ranga was a Prac t ising Advocate at Rewari Cour t and had complete knowledge of law. The p etitioner had further admitted that she was regularly in touch with her co u nsel at Panchkula. Even Parta p Singh Ranga a s AW2 had admitted that he w as an Advocate by professio n and was in touch with the counsel at Panch k ula. Partap Singh Ranga furthe r admitted that he had not produced any medi c al record of himself or his wife . He also admi t ted that he had received copy of judgment dated 24.04.201 4 from the co u nsel. As such, the petitione r and her husband were wel l

¶39

SUNENA 2025.04.07 10:42 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶40

Page 6 of 6

¶41

apprised of t h e matter; and no ground was m ade out for non-appearance o n 11.9.2013. Even no explanation has been g iven as to why application fo r setting aside order dated 11.09.2013 a n d ex parte judgment dated 24.04.2014, w as filed almost 3 years on 02.07.2016.

¶42