GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. BOOTA SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been directed against the order dated 29.7.2008 (Annexure P/8) whereby the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been dismissed and the prayer for setting aside exparte decree dated 18.3.1999 (Annexure P/7) and the order dated 9.12.1998 whereby exparte proceedings had been ordered against defendant no.2-petitioner was rejected. The said order has further been upheld in appeal by the District Judge, Faridkot vide order dated 24.12.2009 (Annexure P/9).

(2.) Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that the suit in question involves the share of immovable property and therefore by imposing reasonable costs, the petitioner-defendant no.2 should be given an opportunity to contest the suit as he did not have any notice. It is submitted that codefendants had compromised to his detriment and therefore, he has been obviously affected.

(3.) On the other hand, counsel for the respondents has vehemently opposed the revision petition and pointed out the conduct of petitioner-defendant no.2 was that he willingly absented himself from the proceedings and chose to appear at his own convenience and demonstrated as to how the litigation had been kept hanging from 1990.