NARINDER KAUR Vs. DARSHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A civil suit by Darshan Singh, plaintiff, respondent herein, seeking a decree of declaration that he is joint owner in possession of land measuring 7 kanals 7 marlas in village Guruharshai Shamli and further that sale deed dated 3.1.2001 in favour of the defendant - Smt.Narinder Kaur, petitioner herein, was illegal, null and void and was ineffective on the rights of the plaintiff being a fraudulent and sham transaction, as also for seeking possession of the land, was pending adjudication before the Court below. For non -appearance of the defendant - petitioner herein, she was proceeded against ex parte. Receiving ex -parte evidence from the plaintiff, his suit was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 13.2.2008 [Annexure P/3].

(2.) LATER , an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside this ex -parte judgment and decree was filed before the lower Court. A tough contest was made by the respondent -plaintiff. The Lower Court framed following questions for adjudication of this application : -

(3.) IT is claimed by the petitioner -defendant that the trial Court was in a great haste to serve the defendant and without even satisfying itself that service cannot be effected in ordinary way, had sought to serve the defendant, petitioner herein by substituted mode, which service was not effected as per law and consequently, ex -parte proceedings were taken to the great prejudice of the petitioner -defendant. Claiming that the petitioner - defendant had come to know of the ex parte judgment and decree against her only in the first week of June, 2008, whereupon she filed the application for setting -aside the ex -parte decree, it is averred that neither there was refusal to receive the summons nor a case was made out for service of the petitioner -defendant by substituted mode and thus, the ex -parte proceedings taken against the petitioner -defendant are wrong, null and void and are not sustainable in the eyes of law.