ANIL KUMAR Vs. BIMLA AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This civil revision is directed against the order dated 14.05.2015 passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Gurgaon, allowing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (for short, "the Code") filed by the defendant-respondent No.1 and thereby setting aside the exparte judgment and decree dated 13.09.2012 and exparte order dated 12.08.2009 passed in favour of the petitioner.

(2.) As pleaded by the petitioner, he filed a suit for permanent injunction against defendant-respondent No.1 claiming to be in possession of a plot (detail of which is given in Para No.2 of the petition) on the basis of an agreement of sale dated 26.03.2002 executed in his favour against payment of total sale consideration of Rs.5 lacs to Ram Chander son of Shiban, husband of respondent-defendant No.2 being G.P.A. holder of Tej Singh son of Than Singh, husband of defendant-respondent No.1. He prayed that respondents-defendants be restrained from interfering in his peaceful possession.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that defendantrespondent No.1 was served through publication. A counsel appeared on her behalf and filed his 'Vakalatnama' before the trial Court. Respondentdefendant No.2 also appeared through a counsel and filed his written statement. Subsequently, on 12.08.2009 when the case was fixed for filing of written statement by defendant-respondent No.1, neither she nor respondent-defendant No.2 appeared personally or through counsel and were proceeded against exparte. The petitioner led his exparte evidence and considering the same the suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 13.09.2012. Subsequently, after more than five months of the judgment and decree, defendant-respondent No.1 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code expressing complete ignorance about the judgment and decree and prayed for setting aside the same. The petitioner contested the application but after taking evidence of the parties, learned trial Court allowed the application vide the impugned order dated 14.05.2015.