KIRPAL KAUR Vs. KULWANT KAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ONE Sucha Singh was murdered. Didar Singh and Kulwant Singh were arrested, challaned, charged and tried under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the said murder. The learned Sessions Judge, Jalandhar acquitted Kulwant Singh but convicted and sentenced Didar Singh vide his judgment and order dated 27. 10. 1977. On appeal this Court acquitted Didar Singh also. The widow of Sucha Singh and others filed civil suit against Didar Singh claiming compensation for the murder of Sucha Singh. Mr. B. S. Cheema, Advocate was defending the suit on behalf of the defendant Didar Singh. On 26. 7. 1980, the said Advocate pleaded no instructions and, therefore, vide his judgment and decree dated 27. 8. 1980, Sub Judge 1st Class, Nawashahar, decreed the suit for recovery of Rs. 67,200/- ex parte. On 15 6 1982, the defendants filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree which was dismissed on 6. 9 1984. Appeal against that order failed on 26. 7. 1985. That order was challenged in Civil Revision No. 2424 of 1985 which was dismissed in limine on 24. 10. 1985 by this Court. Special Leave Petition No. 852 of 1991 was filed against that order. The Supreme Court remanded the case back to this Court for disposal by passing a speaking order. This is how this revision petition has coma before me for hearing.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the petitioner has taken me through the statement of Mr. B. S. Cheema, Advocate who was examined during the hearing of the application for setting aside ex parte decree as RW 1 on behalf of the plaintiffs-respondents He has stated that he was engaged by the defendants to defend the suit and he continued appealing upto 26. 7. 1980 when he pleaded no instructions. The suit was decreed ex parte against the defendants.

(3.) SOLE argument advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners is that in this case when the counsel for Didar Singh defendant had pleaded no instructions, it was the duty of the Court to issue notice to the defendant. In support of this argument he has relied upon the ratio laid down in Tahil Ram Issardas Sadarangani v. Ram Chand Issardas Sadarangani, A. I. R. 1993 S. C. 1182.