AMARJIT SINGH Vs. RAJWANT SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BRIEFLY stated the facts of the case are that the respondent -plaintiff -Rajwant Singh, brother of petitioner -defendant filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell against the petitioner -defendant and procured an ex -parte judgment and decree dated 9.2.2002 against him. Petitioner -defendant on his retirement on 30.4.2002 and on returning to his village came to know about the ex -parte decree and therefore, on 22.5.2002, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex -parte decree which was dismissed by the trial court on 9.9.2004. Aggrieved against the same, petitioner -defendant filed an appeal and the same was allowed vide order dated 18.7.2005 by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, with direction to the trial Court to decide the application afresh after framing of issues and recording of evidence. In the meanwhile respondent -plaintiff Rajwant Singh filed an application on 30.5.2002 for execution of the decree dated 9.2.2002. The CR No. 139 of 2009 2 petitioner -defendant on 25.9.2004 moved an application in the main suit under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act,1963 as the respondent -plaintiff had not made the payment of balance sale consideration to petitioner -defendant within one month from the passing of the decree, as directed in para 14 of the judgement and decree 9.2.2002 passed by the trial court.

(2.) IT appears that after the passing of the order dated 18.7.2005 by the learned appellate Court all the three proceedings i.e. the application under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, said execution proceedings of the judgement and decree dated 9.2.2002 and application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC were pending in one court and tagged together. As a matter of fact, the learned trial court on 8.9.2008 set aside the ex parte judgement and decree dated 9.2.2002 on the statement of the respondent -plaintiff and thus the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC moved by the petitioner -defendant stood allowed. Consequently, the learned trial court vide order dated 1.12.2008 dismissed the application moved by the petitioner -defendant under Section 28 of the Specific Relief Act, 1963 and the execution proceedings filed by the respondent -plaintiff as having become infructuous.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner -defendant and perusing the impugned order, I find no illegality in the order impugned in the present revision petition.