SMT. JAGDISH KAUR BAGGA Vs. JARNAIL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Smt. Jagdish Kaur Bagga, had brought a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sate dated 28.09.2002 in respect of a house against Jarnail Singh, defendant. The said suit ended in ex-parte judgment and decree dated 27.10.2007 against Jarnail Singh, defendant, who had filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree on 10.10.2008. The said application has been allowed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Tarn Taran vide order dated 01.10.2011. It is this order dated 01.10.2011 (Annexure P-4), which is challenged by way of this revision petition brought under the provisions of Article 227 of the Constitution of India by Smt. Jagdish Kaur Bagga, plaintiff. The brief facts required to be noticed for disposal of this revision petition are as under:-

(2.) In the suit brought by Smt. Jagdish Kaur Bagga for possession by way of specific performance of agreement of sale dated 28.09.2002, Jarnail Singh had appeared in the court through Shri Pankaj Joshi, Advocate and had filed written statement. The claim of Jarnail Singh in his application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC is that he could not contact his counsel thereafter on account of heart problem, weakness and old age. According to him, his counsel pleaded no instructions on his behalf on 29.11.2006 without informing him and consequently he was proceeded against ex-parte by the trial court on 29.11.2006 without giving notice to him. He has further claimed that the court thereafter passed an ex-parte judgment and decree against him on 27.10.2007. He has claimed that he came to know of the ex-parte judgment and decree when he received a notice from the executing court in pursuance of which he appeared in the court on 08.10.2008 and came to know of the said decree. He has then filed the application in hand on 10.10.2008.

(3.) The application was opposed by the decree holder. She has claimed the application to be barred by limitation. She has denied the case set up by the defendant-judgment debtor of sickness, his ailment and old age. According to the decree holder, there were no sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree.