DALBIR SINGH Vs. GURMEJ KAUR AND ANOTHER

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiff has preferred this revision petition against the order passed by the lower Appellate Court dated September 3, 2014 whereby the application filed by the defendant- respondents under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC for setting aside ex-parte judgment and decree dated September 2, 1998 has been allowed and the order dated October 31, 2011 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Amritsar dismissing the said application has been set aside.

(2.) The plaintiff- petitioner had filed a suit for declaration claiming ownership and possession of the land mentioned in the heading of the plaint on the basis of registered Will besides claiming right to receive compensation of the property in dispute from the office of Land Acquisition Collector by filing a suit on February 10, 1994. The defendant- respondents after having not been served in ordinary way were summoned through affixation and munadi for September 13, 1994. On November 29, 1995, the respondents were proceeded against ex-parte by the Court. Suit of the plaintiff- petitioner for declaration was decreed on September 2, 1998. The defendant- respondents filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC after a gap of 8 years claiming that they had not been served. The trial Court dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC observing that the defendants had deliberately avoided appearance after having been duly served and had not explained each days delay or cause which prevented them from appearance in the proceedings. The lower Appellate Court has set aside the order passed by the trial Court and set aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated September 2, 1998 and directed the parties to appear before the trial Court for filing written statement and for adjudication of the case in accordance with law.

(3.) Mr. Manuj Nagrath, learned counsel for the petitioner has vehemently contended that the plaintiff- petitioner had obtained an ex-parte decree against the defendant- respondents who are his real sisters. They had actually been served and had knowledge about the pendency of the case. He had drawn the attention of the Court to the statement of Process Server AW5 who proved the service of defendant- respondents by munadi. He urged that the delay in filing of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC should be considered fatal to the defendant- respondents and that the defendantrespondents should not be permitted to re-agitate the matter with an objective to harass the petitioner.