LAWS(P&H)-2004-7-125

PAWAN KUMAR Vs. HARINDER SINGH

Decided On July 02, 2004
PAWAN KUMAR Appellant
V/S
HARINDER SINGH Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the judgments and decrees dated 5.10.1982 and 14.9.1983 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Pathankot, and District Judge, Gurdaspur, vide which the application filed by the defendant-petitioner under Order 9, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 7.8.1980 passed by the Sub Judge Ist Class, Pathankot, was dismissed.

(2.) IN brief facts of the case are that ex parte decree dated 7.8.1980 for ejectment of the defendants from the shop in dispute was passed in favour of the plaintiffs. Pawan Kumar defendant filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, C.P.C., for setting aside the ex parte decree on the ground that he was not served in the suit. The application was contested by the plaintiffs. On the pleadings of the parties, the Sub Judge Ist Class, Pathankot, framed the following issues :-

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on going through the case-law cited by Mr. Sanjay Majithia, I find merit in the contention raised by Ms. Alka Sarin, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the plaintiffs. The plea taken by the petitioner is that the came to know about the ex parte decree on 24.11.1980 when the bailiff came to deliver the possession of the shop in dispute to the plaintiffs. It has come in the statement of Pawan Kumar petitioner that there were persons named Hem Raj Nanda, Agya Ram, Radhey Sham and Mori Lal present at the spot when the Court official came to the shop in order to deliver its possession to the plaintiffs after getting it vacated from him. None of the eye-witnesses, named above, has been examined by the petitioner in order to corroborate his version. Under Section 5 of the Limitation Act reason for the delay has to be explained. The defaulter is required to show "the sufficient cause for not...making the application" within the prescribed period of limitation. It is the subjective satisfaction of the Court that matters for condoning the delay. Both the Courts below have concurrently held that the petitioner had failed to explain the delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. The facts of the case- law cited by the learned counsel for the petitioner are not relevant to the facts of the present case. In the light of the above discussion, I do not find any infirmity in the well-reasoned judgments passed by both the Courts below. Consequently, there is no merit in this revision petition. It is, accordingly, dismissed. However, there shall be no order as to costs. Revision dismissed.