RANJIT SINGH Vs. HARJIT SINGH SANDHU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANT -Ranjit Singh has approached this Court by way of instant revision petition filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 01.03.2012 Annexure P -1 and order dated 07.01.2013 Annexure P -4 passed by the trial Court. Vide order Annexure P -1, defendant was proceeded against ex parte as none appeared for him. Vide order Annexure P -4, trial Court has dismissed application Annexure P -2 dated 21.09.2012 filed by the defendant for setting aside ex parte proceedings ordered against them vide order Annexure P -1. The defendant alleged in his application Annexure P -2 that his counsel in the trial Court returned the brief to the defendant because he intended to approach this Court for transfer of the suit out of District, but on advice of Senior Counsel, the defendant did not file transfer application in this Court but also could not return his brief to his counsel in the trial court. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.

(2.) COUNSEL for the petitioner contended that his counsel in the trial court had pleaded 'no instructions' and therefore, the Court before proceeding ex parte against defendant -petitioner should have issued notice to him. Reliance in support of this contention has been placed on judgment of this Court in the case of Jangir Singh versus M/s. Prem Motors, : 2000 (3) RCR (Civil) 525.

(3.) IN addition to the aforesaid, defendant has not pleaded in application Annexure P -2 or in the instant revision petition that he was not aware of order Annexure P -1 whereby he was proceeded against ex parte. His plea in application Annexure P -2 that he intended to move this Court for transfer of the suit and ultimately he did not file transfer application but failed to return the brief to the counsel also, cannot be accepted because this intention of the plaintiff came into existence on 23.07.2011 when above mentioned order was passed by the trial Court. It would not have taken him more than seven months to decide his course of action of not filing the transfer application till 01.03.2012 when order Annexure P -1 was passed. In addition to the aforesaid, even application Annexure P -2 was moved almost seven months after defendant had been proceeded against ex parte in the trial Court. There is no explanation for the said long delay. The matter does not rest here. Even instant revision petition has been filed on 03.08.2013 i.e. almost seven months after the passing of impugned order Annexure P -4. There is also no explanation for this long delay.