JASVEER KAUR Vs. GURPREET SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition is aggrieved of order dated 29.02.2020, passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka, whereby application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC filed by the respondent has been allowed and the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 09.12.2016, passed by the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka has been set aside and the suit restored to its original number.

(2.) Present petitioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on 22.07.2016 against the respondent-defendant. Said suit was decreed ex-parte vide judgment and decree dated 09.12.2016. Application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC was moved by the respondent while pleading that the respondent was served summons in the said matter, issued for 19.10.2016 on 06.09.2016. In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the petitioner's daughter Amardeep Kaur, notice was served upon him on 17.09.2016 for 01.10.2016. It is stated therein that in order to resolve the controversy between Amardeep Kaur (petitioner's daughter) and the respondent, a Panchayat was convened in the month of September, 2016, wherein Amardeep Kaur disclosed that she had filled blanks of cheque amounting to Rs.3,30,000/- and besides this, she had also prepared one pronote for Rs.1,80,000/- in her own favour and one pronote for Rs.1,50,000/- in favour of her mother Jasveer Kaur. The matter was claimed to have been settled between the parties with the intervention of Panchayat, in which respondent agreed to pay a total sum of Rs.2 lakhs in two installments, one in the month of October, 2016 and second in the month of January, 2017. Petitioner's daughter Amardeep Kaur accordingly assured that after receipt of the first installment by her, she would withdraw the suit for recovery filed by her mother and complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act would be withdrawn after receipt of second installment in January, 2017. Respondent claimed to have paid Rs.1 lakh in the presence of witness on 15.10.2016 i.e. before 19.10.2016, the date in the civil suit. After receiving the said amount, respondent was told that he need not appear in the said suit for recovery. Final installment was handed over by respondent on 12.01.2017 and complaint under the Negotiable Instruments Act was withdrawn by Amardeep Kaur. The other original pronote for the sum of Rs.1,80,000/- was returned and she also executed a statement in writing to this effect on 12.01.2017. In spite of receiving the entire settled amount, it is pleaded that Amardeep Kaur and her mother Jasveer Kaur got the suit decided ex-parte on 09.12.2016 much earlier to the writing dated 12.01.2017 in a dishonest manner and tried to overreach the Court. It is thus stated that the respondent's absence was neither intentional nor willful but due to the reason as above and he came to know of the decree on 13.05.2019 when he obtained copy of the Jamabandi of his land. Said application was contested by the present petitioner while pleading that application after a lapse of two & a half ( 2 ) years of passing judgment and decree dated 09.12.2016 was not maintainable. The respondent, it is stated was duly served but he intentionally did not appear and he only wished to prolong the proceedings. It is only when notice of the application under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC was served, that respondent filed the application.

(3.) Learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Fazilka vide impugned order dated 29.02.2020 allowed the application while observing that there was sufficient ground which prevented the respondent-defendant from appearing in the suit filed by the petitioner. Ex-parte judgment and decree was thus set aside and suit was restored to its original number. Aggrieved therefrom this revision petition has been filed by the petitioner.