Civil Revision No. 2406 of 2009 -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Civil Revision No. 2406 of 2009
Date of decision: 15.05.2009.
Dev Chand
Petitioner
Versus
Ajay Singh ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.
Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner
*****
S.D.ANAND, J.
The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for recovery ( of
certain amount) against the defendant-petitioner. The suit came to
be decreed exparte vide judgment and decree dated 24.1.2002.
Thereafter, the petitioner filed a plea under Order 9 Rule 13 read with
Section 151 C.P.C. which came to be declined by the learned Trial
Court, vide order dated 17.10.2006. In the course of the impugned
order, the learned Trial Court recorded a precise finding that the plea
was time barred. In that context, it noticed that the petitioner had not
even made a mention of any cause of delay in the course of the
affidavit. (“He did not mention even a single word in his affidavit Ex.
AW2/A in respect of causing delay for filing of the present petition.”).
The petitioner filed an appeal which, too, came to be
declined by the learned District Judge, Narnaul vide order dated
19.11.2008. In the course of that order, the learned District Judge
Civil Revision No. 2406 of 2009 -2-
also upheld the finding on point of limitation by noticing that, on the
own showing of the petitioner, he had filed an application on
31.5.2004 to obtain certified copy of the judgment. The copy of the
judgment came to be supplied to him on 11.6.2004. However, inspite
thereof, the plea under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. came to be filed on
on 15.9.2004. It was further held that there was absolutely no cogent
evidence on the file to prove that the petitioner had been prevented
by any sufficient cause from filing the plea in time. It was further
noticed that though the petitioner had raised a plea that he was
under the treatment of a private Doctor, he had not adduced any
evidence in support thereof.
The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position
to argue that there is any factual error in the course of the impugned
judgment of the learned Trial Court or the learned Ist Appellate Court.
For the reasons noticed by the learned Trial Court and
also learned District Judge and quoted in the foregoing paras of this
order, it is apparent that both the Courts had recorded a well
reasoned finding that the plea under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was
time barred. Even if it is assumed that the fact of exparte decree
came to the notice of the plaintiff-petitioner on 31.5.2004 and
limitation is to be counted with effect from that date, the plea under
Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. filed on 15.9.2004 was clearly time barred.
In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held
to be devoid of force and is ordered to be dismissed in limine.
May 15, 2009 (S.D.Anand)
Pka Judge
Civil Revision No. 2406 of 2009 -3-