GURNAM SINGH Vs. JARNAIL SINGH AND OTHERS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India challenging order dated 17.10.2014 (Annexure P-7) whereby, the application of the petitioner, who is defendant no. 1, under Section 151 for restoration of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC which had been dismissed in default on 04.07.2013 has been dismissed.

(2.) The present case is a classic example where the travails of a litigant who is seeking the specific performance of an agreement dated 24.11.1998 continues and the present petitioner who is defendant no. 1 continues to play a game of hide and seek with him regarding the ex parte decree dated 26.10.2006.

(3.) The main argument of counsel for the petitioner is that the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was never decided on merits as it was dismissed in default on 04.07.2013 and, therefore, he has been left remediless. The Additional Civil Judge, (Sr. Divn.), Nakodar while dismissing the application for restoration has imposed special costs of Rs. 2,000/- to be deposited in the District Legal Aid Fund on account of the dilatory litigation which has been resorted to by the present petitioner. In the opinion of this Court, no fault can be found in the order and for that, necessary reference is to be made to the facts.