RESHMA Vs. RAMPHAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 31.3.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhiwani as well as the judgment dated 9.10.2009 passed by the District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby both the Courts below have dismissed the application moved by the defendant - petitioner herein under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

(2.) Brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff - respondent filed suit for specific performance being Suit No. 196/97 in the Court of Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhiwani against Leela Singh, husband of the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, admittedly, Leela Singh had expired on 14.11.1999. In the absence of the defendant, the Court directed ex-parte proceedings vide order dated 27.5.2000 and ultimately, decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 18.9.2002. Present petitioner being wife and L.R. of the deceased ? defendant moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 18.9.2002, contending therein that the applicant is an illiterate lady and had no knowledge of pendency of the aforesaid suit and her husband Leela Singh died in a motor accident on 14.11.1999. After the death of the husband of the applicant, she did not get any information either from the Court or from the lawyer engaged by her deceased husband about the progress and pendency of the suit. It has further been contended that the petitioner came to know for the first time about the ex-parte judgment and decree on 24.5.2005 when plaintiff came to her house to take possession pursuant to the decree. Both the Courts below vide impugned judgments refused to set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree and rejected the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC moved by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved from both the judgments, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that on 14.11.1999 original defendant ? husband of the petitioner Leela Singh died in a motor accident. It is further argued that the petitioner being an illiterate lady, was not aware about the pendency of the suit. It is further argued that neither her husband nor anybody else ever informed the petitioner during the life time of her husband about the pendency of the suit. He also stated that even after the death of her husband neither she received any notice nor any information from the Court or from the counsel allegedly engaged by her husband Leela Singh about the pendency of the suit.