SANJIV KUMAR Vs. BHAG SINGH AND ORS.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS revision petition has been filed against the order dated 20.3.2009 (Annexure P -1) by which the petitioner -defendant No. 1 was proceeded ex parte, ex parte judgment and decree dated 03.6.2011 (Annexure P -2) passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) Naraingarh and order dated 22.4.2015 (Annexure P -5) passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Naraingarh vide which application of the petitioner for setting aside the ex parte order dated 20.3.2009 (Annexure P -1) and ex parte judgment and decree dated 3.6.2011 (Annexure P -2) has been dismissed.

(2.) THE respondent -plaintiff had filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell dated 15.1.2008. Despite being served, petitioner -defendant No. 1 did not appear on 20.3.2009. Hence he was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 20.3.2009 (Annexure P -1). The trial Court after recording the evidence of the respondent -plaintiff, decreed the suit on 3.6.2011 (Annexure P -2). An application filed by the petitioner -defendant No. 1 for setting aside the ex parte decree was dismissed by the trial Court on 22.4.2015 (Annexure P -5). The application was dismissed while making reference to Parimal vs. Veena @ Bharti : 2011 (2) RCR (Civil) 155 (S.C) and Arjun Singh vs. Mohindra Kumar and others, : AIR 1964 (SC) 993, where the Supreme Court had observed that there should be a very good and sufficient cause for explanation of nonappearance.

(3.) In the present case, the petitioner -defendant No. 1 after appearing before the trial Court on 15.1.2009, nor appeared neither filed written statement. No evidence was led that he was so mentally disturbed that he could not appear before the trial Court for filing written statement. The ex parte judgment was pronounced on 3.6.2011 and thereafter an application for setting aside the ex parte judgment was filed on 4.5.2012. The trial Court after framing the issues and recording the evidence dismissed the said application on 22.4.2015 on the ground that except a bald statement that he was mentally disturbed since 2005 there was no reason to record that he had sufficient cause not to appear before the trial Court after service of the summons on 15.1.2009. The present revision petitioner before this Court has been filed on 10.8.2015 without explaining the reason for delay in filing this petition.