AMANDEEP SINGH AND ORS. Vs. SULAKSHNA KAURA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Plaintiffs Amandeep Singh Dhunna and others had brought a suit for possession by way of specific performance of agreement to sell against defendant Smt. Sulakshna Kaura. In that suit, the defendant was proceeded against ex parte and the suit was decreed ex parte, vide judgment and decree dated 16.11.2013. Subsequently, defendant filed an application dated 28.10.2014 for setting aside of said ex parte judgment and decree, contending that she was not served either personally or through registered cover acknowledgment due or by way of any other mode and the plaintiffs had procured a false report of service. Resultantly, she was proceeded against ex parte. She came to know about the ex parte judgment and decree only on 29.09.2014, when on getting notice, she had appeared in the execution proceedings. As such, she moved the application for setting aside of said ex parte judgment and decree dated 16.11.2013. The application was contested vehemently on behalf of the plaintiffs contending that the applicant/defendant was very much aware of the pendency of the proceedings of the suit and was rightly proceeded against ex parte. The application was highly belated and no ground was made out to the accept the same.

(2.) Learned Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Amritsar, had framed issues for proper adjudication of the controversy and afforded opportunities to the parties to lead evidence and thereafter, vide impugned order dated 05.08.2019 accepted the application and set aside the ex parte judgment and decree. The main suit was ordered to be restored at its original number. It may be mentioned here that during the pendency of the proceedings, applicant Sulakshna Kaura had expired and her legal representatives were brought on record.

(3.) I have heard learned counsel for the revisionist besides going through the record and I find that there is no merit in the revision petition. The scope of interference by this Court while exercising revisional jurisdiction is quite limited. Merely because another view in the matter is possible, the order is not to be set aside, though, such interference is called for when the order passed is perverse, arbitrary or in violation of settled judicial parameters, resulting in miscarriage of justice. The impugned order in this case is certainly not of that type, rather, the same is detailed, well reasoned, based upon proper appraisal and appreciation of evidence and correct interpretation of law. It does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity, much less apparent on the face of it. Furthermore, it is always desirable that a lis should be decided on merits, rather than, depriving a contestant to present his version. Rules of procedure are hand maid of justice. The Courts are required to do substantial justice and not to get bogged down in technicalities. It would be proper and appropriate if the dispute between the parties is decided after affording hearing to both the parties and taking on record the evidence, which, they want to produce. The plaintiffs are not going to be prejudiced in any manner. Therefore, finding no merit in the revision petition, the same stands dismissed.