MAJOR SINGH Vs. PREM KUMAR RATTAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petition herein is for setting aside order dtd. 15/12/2017 (Annexure P-4) passed by Ld. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Sangrur affirmed in appeal by the Ld. Additional District Judge, Sangrur vide order dtd. 9/1/2019 (Annexure P-5), whereby the application of petitioner/defendant under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dtd. 12/4/2012 (Annexure P-1) passed in Civil Suit No.68 of 21/5/2009, was dismissed.

(2.) Brief facts as pleaded in the petition are that the case relates to the rivalry of two employees of Cooperative Department. Petitioner is Manager of Cooperative Bank in Sangrur District, while respondent was an Auditor. Respondent filed a suit for recovery of Rs.5.00 lakh as damages against the petitioner for alleged defamation suffered by him due to the complaints made by petitioner, which were ultimately filed or withdrawn by petitioner. Respondent maneuvered the proceedings of purported service of petitioner in the civil suit and without the knowledge of petitioner, obtained the ex-parte judgment and decree dtd. 12/4/2012. In fact, petitioner was aggrieved because respondent made false allegations for which false criminal case was registered against petitioner. In that case, petitioner was acquitted after trial. During this process, petitioner was tortured for 29 days by the police to secure his admission in respect of wrong charges leveled by respondent. Petitioner came to know of the said judgment and decree in April-2014, when he enquired from the concerned official of his department that as to why he was paid less salary and the concerned official told him that his salary was being paid to him after deducting the amount as ordered by the Court. Meaning thereby, petitioner came to know about the judgment when portion of his salary was attached by the Executing Court in execution of the ex-parte judgment and decree dtd. 12/4/2012 (Annexure P-1). Thereafter, petitioner immediately filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC.

(3.) Having heard the arguments and perusing the impugned order passed by Ld. First Appellate Court, seemingly there are two findings rendered in favour of petitioner herein. Pertinently, respondent has not challenged any of those findings rendered by Ld. First Appellate Court. Same being apposite are reproduced herein below: