HARJIT KAUR Vs. JASPAL SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner was proceeded ex parte on February 21, 1998 in a suit for specific performance based on an agreement to sell immovable property instituted against her by the vendee. She was restrained by the interim order on February 21, 1998 from alienating the suit property except in favour of the plaintiff till further orders. The suit was decreed ex parte on January 3, 2000. She filed an application for setting aside the ex parte decree on February 24, 2004. That application was declined on November 27, 2008 by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Ratia. Aggrieved by the order, she preferred an appeal before the Additional District Judge, Fatehabad which was dismissed on April 27, 2012 against which the present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) WHETHER the petitioner was served or not of summons in the suit is a pure question of fact which finding can normally be not interfered with in proceedings in exercise of power of superintendence conferred on this Court by Article 227 of the Constitution of India which are not meant to correct mere errors of fact or law in proceedings before the subordinate courts.

(3.) IN Nibaran Chandra Bag v. Mahendra Nath Ghughu, : AIR 1963 SC 1895 the Supreme Court observed: