KRISHNA DEVI Vs. SANGEETA VERMA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Under challenge in this revision petition is order dtd. 8/9/2021, copy Annexure P4 passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Sr.Divn.), Ambala vide which he had set aside ex-parte judgment and decree dtd. 9/2/2012 directing de novo trial. It are the LRs of plaintiff, who are aggrieved by the said order and have approached this Court by way of filing the instant revision petition.

(2.) Briefly stated, facts of the case are that plaintiff - Smt.Krishna Devi, widow of Sh.Brij Lal, resident of House No.623/6889, Ward No.4, Kalal Majri, Ambala City, since dead, now represented by her LRs had filed a civil suit against defendant No.1 - Smt.Sangeeta Verma and UCO Bank, Ambala Cantt; on getting notice, defendant No.1 -Smt.Sangeeta Verma had put in appearance, engaging Sh.Anil Parkash Garg, Advocate; subsequently, on account of non-appearance of such defendant No.1, she was proceeded against ex-parte vide order dtd. 1/9/2011 and thereafter the suit was decreed ex-parte on 9/2/2012; subsequently defendant No.1 - Sangeeta Verma filed an application for setting aside of ex-parte judgment and decree contending that she is is a houshold lady and her husband Sh.Pardeep Verma was pursuing the case; it was he, who had engaged Sh.Anil Parkash Garg, Advocate to represent her; she did not have any direct contact with the counsel; unfortunately her husband died on 19/8/2009 in prime of youth leaving her in a state of shock, therefore, she could not know about fate of the case; the counsel had also not informed her in that regard; as a matter of fact counsel representing her Sh.Anil Parkash Garg, Advocate had also expired on 28/3/2011; Sh.Amit Gupta, Advocate working with him as his junior counsel had joined another advocate and did not inform defendant No.1; the plaintiff by concealment of facts managed to get ex-parte judgment and decree in her favour about which defendant No.1 come to know on 27/9/2013, when plaintiff brought bricks and building material at the spot starting construction; the defendant No.1 asked her not do do so, then she showed copy of the decision of the Court to her and it was only then defendant No.1 came became aware of ex-parte judgment decree passed against her; she applied for copy of judgment and decree and then moved application for setting aside of the same. According to the applicant/defendant No.1, there was no case in favour of the plaintiff to claim preemption as the building happened to be composite one; the plaintiff had claimed total/major front of the building, resultantly the remaining portion lost its worth and utility and according to the applicant/defendant No.1, if the ex-parte judgment and decree are allowed to continue that would cause great prejudice to her.

(3.) Notice of the application was given to plaintiff, who appeared and contested the application taking several legal objections including maintainability of the application; the application being time barred; the applicant having concealed true and material facts from the Court, further contending that applicant is a property dealer and has been running a jewellery business also; she had deliberately absented from the Court as she was not interested in pursuing the suit knowing that she did not have any case on merits, therefore, no ground for setting aside of the ex-parte judgment and decree was made out.