Jugraj Singh & Others vs Smt. Manjit Kaur on 25 November, 2009

CR No.1013 of 2009 (O&M)                             -1-


    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                  CHANDIGARH

                                  CR No.1013 of 2009 (O&M)
                                  Decided on :25.11.2009

Jugraj Singh & others                          ... Petitioners

                           versus

Smt. Manjit Kaur                               ... Respondent


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

Present : Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate
          for the petitioners.

          Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate
          for respondent.

                           ****

1.Whether Reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see
  the judgment?
2.To be referred to the reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?


AJAY TEWARI, J. (ORAL)

This revision petition has been filed against the order

of the ld. Lower Appellate Court as well as of the Trial Court

declining application under order 9 Rule 13.

The case set up is that the matter is fixed for

13.11.2001 and it was only on that date the applicant (defendant

in the main suit) did not appear and immediately thereafter on

01.12.2001, he was declared ex parte and the suit was decreed;

and within a period of three months the application for setting

aside the ex parte judgment had been filed. It is further prayed

that decretal amount has already been deposited and in fact the
CR No.1013 of 2009 (O&M) -2-

same has been withdrawn by the respondent. Learned counsel

has argued that keeping in mind the protracted limitation and the

fact that petitioner-defendant had appeared on each and every

date (as has been found by the Courts below themselves) it was

not a case where the application under Order 9 Rule 13 should

have been dismissed. Learned counsel for the respondent has on

the other hand defended the order saying that the conduct of the

petitioner reveals that he was aware of the fact that the case was

fixed for 13.11.2001 and that there was no justification shown for

his absence.

In my opinion, in the circumstances of the present

case, it would be in the interest of justice if the ex parte

judgment is set aside and the applicant is permitted to contest

the suit. There is no doubt that the petitioner was aware of the

date fixed but his absence could not be held so culpable so as to

disentitle him even from defending the suit.

In this view of the matter, the impugned order is set

aside. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 is allowed. The

judgment and decree dt. 01.12.2001 is also set aside and the ld.

Trial Court is directed to decide the case as per law.

Parties through their counsel are directed to appear

before the ld. Trial Court on 30.11.2009. It is made clear that

this order would operate only if the petitioner pays cost of

Rs.10,000/- in favour of respondent by way of bank draft to be

handed over on the date fixed. In case this payment is not

made, this petition would stand dismissed without further
CR No.1013 of 2009 (O&M) -3-

reference to this court.

With these observations, this petition is disposed of.

Since the main case has been decided, all the pending

civil miscellaneous applications, if any, stand disposed of.

November 25, 2009                            (AJAY TEWARI)
sonia                                            JUDGE