LAWS(P&H)-2023-9-91

GURU NANAK RICE MILLS Vs. HARDIAL SINGH

Decided On September 02, 2023
Guru Nanak Rice Mills Appellant
V/S
HARDIAL SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition assails the order dtd. 30/1/2023, vide which the application filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was allowed and the ex parte judgment and decree dtd. 30/10/2018 (Annexure P-2) was set aside but a condition was imposed that the ex parte judgment and decree was being set aside subject to the present petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee qua the decretal amount within 20 days, failing which the petition under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC would stand dismissed.

(2.) The facts, as emanating from the petition, are that a suit for recovery of Rs.13,57,968.97 was filed by the respondent-plaintiff against the petitionersdefendants (Annexure P-1). However, the petitioners-defendants did not appear in the said suit as a result of which they were proceeded against ex parte and ex parte judgment and decree dtd. 30/10/2018 (Annexure P-2) was passed. An application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC (Annexure P-3) was filed by the petitioners-defendants for setting aside the said ex pare judgment and decree. The same was opposed by way of a reply (Annexur P-4). However, vide order dtd. 30/1/2023 (Annexure P-5), the application was allowed. A categoric finding was returned that the petitioners-defendants had not been served in the suit. However, the ex parte judgment and decree was set aside but a condition was imposed that the petitioners-defendants would furnish a bank guarantee with regard to the decretal amount. It is this condition which led to the filing of the present revision petition.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the paper book.