SHRI MATI CHHANNO Vs. BACHAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BISHNA and Rura were two brothers. Bishna had two sons, namely, ishar and Dalla. Smt. Chhanno petitioner is the daughter of Ishar. On the death of Ishar, she being the sole heir inherited his agricultural land and the mutation was sanctioned in her favour. Bachan Singh respondent is the son of Bakhtawar Singh son of Rura.

(2.) ON 13 -6 -1979 Bachan Singh respondent filed a suit in the trial Court alleging that land measuring 22 kanals 12 Marias, which the petitioner had inherited from her father and was owned by her, was given by her to the respondent in a family settlement. He claimed that she delivered the possession of the land to him on 1 -1 -1979. He, thus, sought a decree of declaration against the petitioner to the effect that he had become the owner in possession of the suit land. The Trial Court ordered issuance of summons to the petitioner by ordinary way and by registered post for 1 -8 -1979. The respondent, however, did not file the registered cover. So, summons were not issued to her On 1 -8 -1979 the trial Court passed a fresh order for issuance of summons to the petitioner both by ordinary way and by registered post. The respondent did not file the registered cover again. So, no notice was issued to her by registered post Summons in the ordinary way were, however, issued. A report thereon was made by the Process -Server to the effect that the petitioner had refused service. When the suit came up before the trial Court for hearing on 19 -9 -1979, the petitioner was ordered to be proceeded against ex -parte on the basis of the aforesaid report on the summons. The respondent was directed to produce ex -parte evidence in support of his claim on 15 -12 -1979 on which date, however, no evidence was produced and the case was adjourned to 15 -1 -1980 for the production of ex -parte evidence by the respondent.

(3.) THE petitioner filed an application under section 151 Code of Civil Procedure (for short 'the Code') on 21 -4 -1983 wherein she alleged that she was never served in the suit. She did not engage any counsel. She had no knowledge of the ex -parte proceedings taken against her on 19 -9 1179. She did not apply for setting aside those ex -parte proceedings nor did she file any written statement admitting the claim in suit of the respondent. She did not engage Shri S.P. Sharma Advocate as her counsel. She, therefore, made a prayer that the ex -parte decree being fraudulent should be set aside and she should be allowed to enter defence and contest the suit on merits. She did add that it appeared that the respondent obtained her thumb -impression on the Wakalatnama and certain papers and thus obtained the aforesaid orders and the decree. The application was opposed by the respondent.