Smt. Sona And Others vs Sham Lal on 1 April, 2009

Civil Revision No.633 of 2009                     -1-

                                    ****


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                      CHANDIGARH


                       Civil Revision No.633 of 2009
                       Date of decision: 1.04.2009.


Smt. Sona and others

                                                  .....Petitioners

                               Versus

Sham Lal

                                                  ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND.


Present:   Mr. Manjeet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners

           Mr. Gourav Jain, Advocate for
           Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate for the respondents.

                            *****

S.D.ANAND, J.

The learned Trial Court passed an exparte decree against

the defendants-petitioners on 15.3.2002. A plea filed by the

defendants-petitioners under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C., for setting

aside of the impugned decree, was negatived by the learned Trial

Court vide order dated 24.12.2007 (Annexure P-3). Apart from the

finding on merits, the learned Trial Court recorded that the

application was time barred. It held that though the defendant-

petitioner-applicant had been able to prove that he remained ill upto

to the period 8.6.2002, there was nothing on record to prove that he

remained ill or disabled, in any manner (from filing the plea for
Civil Revision No.633 of 2009 -2-

****

setting aside of the exparte decree which (plea) ultimately filed on

10.8.2002. In a finding of affirmative character, the learned Ist

Appellate court upheld the finding in toto including the finding on

point of limitation.

In the face of the concurrent finding of fact to the effect

that the defendants had not been able to adduce any evidence to

explain the delay with effect from 9.6.2002 to 10.8.2002, I called

upon the learned counsel for the defendants-petitioners to indicate if

that finding is factually incorrect or if there is any other evidence on

record where from it could be culled out that the defendant-petitioner

was suffering from any type of disability on account of which he had

to compulsively refrain from filing the plea under Order 9 Rule 13

C.P.C. till 10.8.2002. (It is common ground that the plea

aforementioned came to be filed on 10.8.2002).

Learned counsel very fairly informs that he is not in a

position to invite the attention of this Court to any material obtaining

on the file which could suggest that there is any factually inaccuracy

in the impugned finding of fact. He also states that the defendant-

petitioner had not been able to place on record any evidence to

explain the delay from 9.6.2002 onwards upto 10.8.2002. He,

however, argues that equity must out weigh the law because the

plaintiff had obtained the decree on the basis of a forged agreement

and the subject of the suit involved land worth a substantial amount.

The plea raised is completely denuded of merit. Each

day’s delay in the relevant behalf has to be explained by the party.
Civil Revision No.633 of 2009 -3-

****

Infact, some bit of indulgence is allowable to be shown in the case of

litigants were involved in impersonal litigation. e.g., the Government

or the instrumentalities of the Government. That indulgence is not

allowable to be shown in the case of the private litigants. They have

to explain each day’s delay in the relevant behalf. The defendant-

petitioner has not been able to find any legal lacuna in the impugned

order (of the trial Court and also the learned Ist Appellate Court).

In the light of the fore-going discussion, the petition is

held to be denuded of merit and is ordered to be dismissed.

April 01, 2009                                  (S.D.Anand)
Pka                                                Judge