TULSI RAM Vs. NAND LAL AND 4 ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This petition is directed against an order, whereby an application for condonation of delay, filed alongwith application under Order-9 Rule-13 C.P.C. by the defendant, has been rejected.

(2.) Briefly,stated facts are that a registered agreement to sell was executed by Ramveer in favour of respondent nos. 1,2 & 3 on 26.11.2007. No sale-deed, however, pursuant to it, was executed instead a sale-deed was executed by Ramveer in favour of his brother Tulsi Ram, who is the petitioner, herein, on 27.9.2008. Respondent Nos. 1,2 & 3, therefore, filed Original Suit No. 906 of 2008 for cancellation of sale-deed dated 27.9.2008 as well as for specific performance of registered agreement to sell dated 26.11.2007. It is further not in dispute that during the pendency of the suit, petitioner has further transferred the property to certain other persons on 1.2.2010. The suit was decreed ex-parte on 29.3.2010 after the present petitioner as well as Ramveer were duly served in the suit. It appears that the present petitioner had filed a written statement , where after, he failed to turn up, whereas, Ramveer did not file any written statement at all.

(3.) Subsequently, an application under Order-9 Rule-13 C.P.C. was filed on 7.1.2011 alongwith an application filed under Sec. 5 of the Indian Limitation Act. It was stated that the petitioner is a poor person , who went to Punjab for employment and, therefore, he was not aware about the proceedings being continued against him and, as such, he could not appear. It was also stated that parties, during the pendency of the suit, had entered into a settlement and certain amount was paid by the petitioners to the plaintiff, as such, the defendant - petitioner remained under a bonafide believe that the proceedings of the suit would not be pursued any further.