LAWS(P&H)-2015-12-239

AMAR SINGH Vs. LAKHVIR SINGH

Decided On December 24, 2015
AMAR SINGH Appellant
V/S
Lakhvir Singh Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) - Impugned in the present revision is the order dated 26.2.2010 (Annexure-P-3), passed by the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Khanna, whereby an application filed under Sec. 5 read with Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the application under Order 9, Rule 13 CPC for setting aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 7.2.1996 was dismissed being timed barred. Also impugned is the order dated 31.10.2012, passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, whereby the appeal against the said order was also dismissed.

(2.) Undisputedly, a suit for possession by way of specific performance of land measuring 9 kanals 9 marlas, situated within the revenue estate of village Rattanheri, Tehsil Khanna, District Ludhiana, was filed against the present revisionist in the Court of the then Additional Senior Sub Judge, Khanna. It was averred in the said suit that defendant (revisionist herein) had agreed to sell the said land to the plaintiff (respondent herein) for Rs. 73,237/-, vide agreement to sell dated 14.6.1990. The sale deed was to be executed on or before 1.6.1991. It was further claimed that the sale deed was not executed by the defendant/revisionist. It also comes out from the perusal of the lower Court file that the defendant/revisionist in the said suit is stated to have been served through registered AD letter, but he did not appear and was proceeded against ex parte on 18.4.1995. Accordingly, an ex parte judgment and decree was passed on 7.2.1996. The present revisionist, who was defendant in the said suit, filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 CPC, for setting aside the said ex parte judgment and decree. Along with the said application, an application under Sec. 5 read with Sec. 14 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay was filed on 27.5.1997, which was dismissed.

(3.) It also comes out that the lower Court had framed the following issues for disposal of the main application filed under Order 9, Rule 13 read with Sec. 151 CPC:-