GIAN KAUR Vs. AMRIT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) GIAN Kaur plaintiff-petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the petitioner) filed a suit for permanent injunction against Balwant Kaur, Sharanjit Kaur, Avtar Singh, Jaspreet Singh, giving their addresses as House No. 1122, Sector 20-B, Chandigarh and Amrit Singh giving his address as House No. 2274, Sector 21-B, Chandigarh, restraining them from alienating the suit land as described in the head note of the plaint or creating any sort of encumbrance over it.

(2.) THE suit was filed in November, 1980 which was decreed ex-parte against the defendant-respondents (hereinafter referred to as the respondents) on 25. 7. 1981. On 20. 8. 1986, two sets of applications, one by Balwant Kaur and Avtar Singh etc. and the other by Amrit Singh were filed under Order 9 Rule 13 C. P. C. for setting aside ex parte decree dated 25. 7. 1981 in Civil Suit No. 705 of 4. 11. 1980 titled as Gian Kaur v. Balwant Kaur and Ors. . Both these applications were dismissed by the trial Court on 20. 10. 1989 against which two separate appeals were filed before the District Judge, Sangrur. Both the appeals were consolidated and disposed of together. The appeals were accepted, order of the trial Court was set aside, ex-parte decree was also set aside and the case was remanded back to the trial court for decision on merits. Aggrieved against the aforesaid decision of the District Judge, Sangrur, two revision petitions No. 940 and 2795 of 1994 have been filed by the petitioner which are being disposed of by this common order. Facts are taken from CR. No. 940 of 1994 titled Gian Kaur v. Amrit Singh and Ors. .

(3.) GIAN Kaur petitioner contested the application for setting aside the exparte decree. She denied the allegations of the respondents by alleging that they had willfully absented themselves and intentionally did not put in appearance in Court. It was maintained by her that respondents were rightly proceeded against ex parte and the judgment and decree is valid. An objection has been taken on her behalf that application for setting aside ex parte decree was not filed within limitation. Trial Court framed the following issues: