PRITAM KAUR Vs. GURBAX SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present revision petition is directed against the orders dtd. 4/3/2015 (Annexure P-1) and 21/5/2014 (Annexure P-2) whereby application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dtd. 9/4/2011 passed in civil suit seeking specific performance of agreement to sell, has been dismissed.

(2.) The respondent-plaintiff instituted the suit on 24/12/2003 for specific performance of agreement to sell dtd. 29/9/2000 wherein the petitioner-defendant was proceeded ex parte on 11/9/2007, resulting into passing of the aforementioned judgment and decree. The application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree was filed on 16/3/2013.

(3.) Mr. Jain, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that trial court did not comply with the provisions of Order 5 Rule 17 CPC, while passing the ex parte order dtd. 11/9/2007. In support of aforementioned contention, relied upon judgment of this Court rendered in Palo v. Ajaib Singh and others [2010(5) Law Herald (P&H) 3904] : (2010-3) Vol. CLIX 143 whereby it has been held that in view of non-compliance of aforementioned provisions, the entire proceedings are vitiated in law. The objection qua limitation has been proved through the specific question in cross-examination to petitioner, AW5, where she admitted that Gurbax Singh and others had visited her premises on 14/2/2013 whereas the application was filed on 16/3/2013 i.e. within 30 days. No harm and prejudice would be caused to the plaintiff in case opportunity of hearing is given to defend the case by fixing the time line, subject to any terms and conditions, which this Court deems appropriate.