KISHORE KUMAR ARORA Vs. HARVINDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions raise common question of law and fact hence they are being dealt together and decided by a common order.

(2.) Three separate suits for specific performance bearing No. 342 of 2003, 343 of 2003 and 344 of 2003 was filed by the respondents no. 1 & 2 before the Court of Civil Judge (SD), Jhansi. It is contended in the said suit that by an agreement to sale, petitioner/defendant had agreed to sell the property in the shape of three portion of the land of the House (total measuring 2040 Sq feet) , 1455 sq feet for consideration of Rs. 50,000/-, 2040 sq. feet for consideration of Rs. 50,000/- and 2829 sq feet for consideration of Rs. 1,00,000/- respectively. Stipulation in the agreement enjoins upon the defendant to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff and on its failure to do so the plaintiff would be well within his right to enforce the agreement for executing the sale deed in his favour. After filing of the suit, notices/summons were issued to the petitioner which is said to have been served on the wife of the petitioner on 23.10.2003. On his failure to appear, despite service effected on his wife an ex-parte decree was passed on 18.3.2004. By virtue of the aforesaid ex-parte decree all the three suits were allowed. It is pertinent to mention here that the petitioner is said to have acquired the knowledge of the ex-parte decree on 18.1.2006 when he was informed by his brother about the filing of the suits and same been decreed by the Court. He took steps to file an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 accompanied with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for seeking condonation of delay in filing the said application.

(3.) In his application for setting aside the ex-parte decree petitioner had specifically contended that no notice was served on him. He took following pleas in his application:-