MALKIATSINGH Vs. JOGINDERSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Special leave granted.

(2.) The appellants were tried for the murder of one Harpal Singh and on conviction, were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- by the learned Special Court, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 1-4-1985. The respondents, it appears, on 16-8-89 filed a suit in the Court of learned Sub Judge, Ist Class, Samrala claiming damages from the appellants to the tune of Rs. 1,00,000/- for deprivation of the income to the family members which they used to get from deceased Harpal Singh. The claim in the suit was contested by the appellants. They filed their written statement and engaged a counsel to defend the suit. The trial Court, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed a number of issues. After two witnesses for the plaintiffs in that suit had been examined and cross- examined, it transpires that, on 18-11-1991, learned counsel who had been engaged by the appellants herein for defending them in the suit, pleaded "no instructions" before the Court. As a result of the counsel pleading no instructions, the appellants were proceeded ex parte. On 8-2-1992, the learned trial Court passed an ex parte decree against the appellants.

(3.) The appellants went to enquire about the proceedings in the case from their counsel. On 6-6-1992, on their enquiry, their counsel informed them that he had pleaded "no instructions" as a result of which they were proceeded ex parte and the suit had been decreed ex parte on 8-2-1992. The appellants then engaged another counsel and on 10-6-1992, filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. for setting aside the order dated 18-11-1991 and the ex parte judgment and decree dated 8-2-1992. While that application was pending adjudication, the appeal filed by the appellants against their conviction and sentence was heard by this Court. On 7-3-1995, the order of conviction and sentence was set aside.