PUNJAB URBAN PLANNING Vs. JOGINDER SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a revision petition filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (for brevity, the Code) is directed against the order dated 22.3.2001 passed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala dismissing the appeal of the defendant-petitioner against order dated 7.9.1999 dismissing an application filed under Order IX rule 13 of the Code passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala. In the order dated 7.9.1999, the Civil Judge had refused to set aside the exparte decree dated 30.4.1997.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case unfolded in this revision petition are that the plaintiff-respondent filed a suit of No. 67-T of 10.3.95 seeking declaration that the letter dated 9.2.1994 issued by the defendant-petitioner cancelling the allotment of plot No. 534 mentioned in the above para was illegal, null and void. Plot No. 534 was auctioned and the plaintiff-respondent being the highest bidder was allotted the plot on 15.6.1985 after he deposited the bid amount of Rs. 3241.50. Vide letter dated 27.2.1992, the plaintiff-respondent was asked by the defendant-petitioner to pay a sum of Rs. 31,790/- (Rs. 6,979/- on account of balance price of the plot and an amount of Rs. 24,607/- on account of over due amount of instalments). The whole amount of Rs. 31,790/- was paid by the plaintiff-respondent to the Estate Officer, Urban Estate, Chandigarh vide demand draft dated 5.3.1992 drawn on State Bank of Patiala, Service Branch, Chandigarh. It was in these circumstances that on 22.3.1994, the defendant-petitioner cancelled the allotment of plot No. 534 forfeiting the amount of Rs. 3241.50 and directed the refund of balance amount of Rs. 29,173.50 paise without grant of any hearing to the plaintiff- respondent. The suit was decreed on 30.4.1997 against the defendant- petitioner and an exparte decreed was passed. Thereafter, the defendant- petitioner filed an application under Order IX rule 13 of the Code for setting aside exparte judgment and decree dated 30.4.1997 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Patiala. After issuing notice of the application and receipt of written statement filed by the plaintiff-respondent the Civil Judge framed 5 issues which are as under :

(3.) ON issue No. 2, the Civil Judge held that application under order IX rule 13 was filed beyond the period of limitation prescribed and thus, the same was barred. Other issues are insignificant to deal with.