RANJIT SINGH Vs. SARUP SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petition to set aside the ex parte decree passed 3.8.2013 was filed on 19.11.2013. According to the petitioner, he came to know about the ex parte decree only when he was served with summons in execution petition on 16.11.2013 and since he had not been duly served, the starting point of limitation must be taken only to be date of knowledge of the decree that according to him was only when he was served with notice in execution petition. Before the trial Court, the objection taken was that he had actually been served in May, 2013 as per endorsement by bailiff and attested by local authority about the service of summons in suit. The objection, therefore, was that if he had been served with summons, the application for setting aside the ex parte decree must be filed within 30 days from the date of decree passed on 3.8.2013 and the petition not having been filed before 03.09.2013 but was filed on 19.11.2013, the petition was not competent. The trial Court accepted the objection of the decree holder and rejected the application. The appeal also met with the same result.

(2.) I have seen through the copy of the records produced before me and I find that the petitioner has been served only with the summons and not the copy of the plaint along with it. The contention by him, therefore, is that when he was not duly served. I think the contention ill -behoves a fair submission in Court and for the indiscretion made by the party in approaching the Court without disclosure of full facts, I impose costs of Rs. 25,000/ - to be paid for setting aside the ex parte decree.

(3.) Since it is a matter relating to immovable property, it would be only appropriate that parties have full contest on the respective contentions by pleadings in trial. The orders passed already are set aside and the revision petition is allowed but subject to the above condition. The costs shall be paid within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the order already passed shall stand restored. The revision petition is allowed with the above observations. It is stated by the respondent that there was no application for condonation of delay. If I find that there was no due notice of summons, I will not find that there was any delay in filing the application. The counsel for the petitioner says that Rs. 1,45,000/ - has been deposited to the credit of the case in due compliance of direction of this Court and that amount should be kept in bank deposit. The petitioner is at liberty to approach the Court below for due deposit of the sum in some nationalized bank with interest. The manner of disbursal of the amount will abide by the final decision which the Court will grant at the time of judgment after trial.