SURINDER KAUR Vs. PAWAN KUMAR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) PRESENT revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside ex -parte judgment and decree dated 07.06.2003 (Annexure P/1), order dated 10.01.2009 (Annexure P/3) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Dasuya and order dated 19.03.2012 (Annexure P/4) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Hoshiarpur, whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that respondent no. 1 -plaintiff filed a suit for possession against the defendants. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. In spite of service of notice, none appeared out of the defendants and ultimately, the petitioner along with defendant no. 2 were proceeded against ex parte. Therefore, vide order dated 07.06.2003, ex parte decree was passed.

(2.) IT is the case of the petitioner that respondent/plaintiff Pawan Kumar got ex parte judgment and decree by misleading the court. The petitioner was neither served by way of munadi nor publication etc. as required under Order 5 Rules 12, 17 and 19 C.P.C. It is further averred that the petitioner came to know about the ex parte judgment and decree dated 07.06.2003, on 27.11.2003 when the process server was going to effect munadi in the execution of the ex parte judgment and decree. It is specifically contended that the petitioner was neither served in accordance with law nor she had the knowledge of proceedings and as such, the ex -parte decree is liable to be set aside.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the judgments of the Courts below.