LAWS(P&H)-2013-7-814

HARBHAJAN SINGH AND ANOTHER Vs. TARLOK SINGH

Decided On July 17, 2013
Harbhajan Singh And Another Appellant
V/S
TARLOK SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) DEFENDANTS have filed this revision petition under Section 115 of Civil Procedure Code (in short, C.P.C.) assailing order dated 18.11.1997 (Annexure P -3) passed by trial Court and judgment dated 26.04.2002 (Annexure P -5) passed by learned Appellate Court. Respondent -plaintiff Tarlok Singh filed suit against defendants -petitioners who are sons of the plaintiff -respondent. In the suit, the plaintiff challenged earlier consent judgment and decree dated 30.11.1993 passed against the respondent and in favour of the petitioners allegedly having been obtained by impersonation. Petitioners were proceeded against ex parte in the suit filed by the respondent. The said suit was decreed ex -parte vide judgment and decree dated 16.08.1995 (Annexures P -1 & P -2). Defendants filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the said ex -parte judgment and decree. Learned trial Court vide order dated 18.11.1997 (Annexure P -3) dismissed the said application. Appeal against the said order preferred by the defendants has been dismissed by learned Additional District Judge, Patiala vide judgment dated 26.04.2002 (Annexure P -5). Feeling aggrieved, defendants have filed the instant petition to challenge order/judgment (Annexures P -3 and P -5).

(2.) NONE appeared for respondent on the last date of hearing. The case was adjourned for today and office was directed to inform counsel for respondent. Accordingly, counsel for the respondent -plaintiff has been informed However, in spite thereof, none has appeared for respondent -plaintiff even today. Resultantly, I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners/defendants and perused the case today including files of the Courts below with his assistance.

(3.) I have carefully considered the aforesaid contentions, but the same cannot be accepted.