Anju Vs Karam Singh & Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

Anju Vs Karam Singh & Ors. — Punjab & Haryana HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

Issue for consideration

Whether the revision petition challenging the order dated 05.04.2017 dismissing the petitioner's application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 13.05.2014 should proceed (the substantive challenge was ultimately not adjudicated; the petition was dismissed for non-prosecution)

Court's answer

Issuance of fresh notice to the petitioner would be a futile exercise; owing to sheer long pendency of the petition for more than 08 years, during which she made no attempt to contact her counsel or engage new counsel despite being duly served, the petitioner is not seriously interested in pursuing the present matter.

Ratio / Principle

Accordingly, the present petition stands dismissed for non-prosecution.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Revision petition dismissed for non-prosecution — Anju v. Karam Singh & Ors., CR-6516-2018 (High Court of Punjab and Haryana, decided 12.03.2026 by Nidhi Gupta, J.). The revision petition challenged the order dated 05.04.2017 (Annexure P/4) of the learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Div.), Shahabad (Markanda), whereby the petitioner-defendant's application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 13.05.2014 (Annexure P/1) had been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner stated that despite his best efforts the petitioner was not coming forward to pursue the petition; fresh notices issued on the last hearing date (10.02.2026) went unavailing, and the office report dated 11.03.2026 confirmed the petitioner stood duly served yet absent, while the respondents appeared in person. Holding that after more than 08 years' pendency the petitioner had lost interest and was not seriously interested in pursuing the matter, making issuance of fresh notice a futile exercise, the Court dismissed the petition for non-prosecution. No substantive adjudication of the Order 9 Rule 13 CPC challenge was rendered; no precedent was cited and no question of law was decided.

IN THE H I GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND H ARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

297

CR-6516-2018 D ate of Decision:12.03.2026

Anju .…Petitioner

Versus

Karam Singh & Ors. .... Responde n ts

BEFORE: HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present: - M r. Balkar Singh, Advocate for t h e petitioner.

M r. Parveen Kumar with M r. Rishi Pal Chaudhary, Advoc a te for the respondents w ith respondents in person.

NIDHI GUPTA, J. (ORAL)

P r esent revision petition has b e en filed by the petitioner la y ing challenge to t h e order dated 05.04.2017 (An n exure P/4) passed by the lear n ed Additional Ci v il Judge (Sr. Div.), Shahabad (Markanda), whereby applica t ion filed by the a p plicant/defendant (petitioner h e rein) under Order 9 Rule 13 C PC for setting asi d e the ex parte judgment and d ecree dated 13.05.2014 (Anne x ure P/1) has been d ismissed.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that despite his b est efforts, the p e titioner is not coming forwa r d to pursue the present revi s ion petition.

A perusal of the order sheet rev e als that on the last date of hea r ing i.e. on 10.02. 2 026, in view of the abovesaid s tatement made by learned cou n sel for the petitio n er, fresh notices had been issue d to the parties.

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.13 19:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.

CR-6516-201 8 - 2 -

Learned counsel for the respond e nts submits that in response to the

notice, respon d ents are present in person.

O ffice report dated 11.03.2026 shows the petitioner stands d uly served, yet sh e is not coming forward to pursu e the present petition.

I n view of the aforesaid premi s e, issuance of fresh notice to the petitioner wo u ld be futile exercise. It appears that due to sheer long pendenc y of the present p e tition before this Court for a p eriod of more than 08 years, the petitioner has lost interest in pursuing the sa m e, as no attempt has been mad e by her to contact hercosunsel or to engage a ne w counsel. It is, therefore, clear t hat the petitioner i s not seriously interested in pur s uing the present matter.

A ccordingly, the present peti t ion stands dismissed for n on-

prosecution.

12.03.2026 amit

( NIDHIGUPTA ) JUDGE

Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No

RISHU KATARIA 2026.03.13 19:48 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.