HARBHEJ SINGH Vs. DIWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS petition is directed against the orders of the Additional District Judge, Amritsar, dated 7th of April, 1989 whereby the order of the trial Court, dated 18-1-1988 dismissing the application for setting aside ex-parte decree under Order 9, Rule 13 C. P. C. was maintained,

(2.) A suit for possession of one half share of land measuring 73 Kanals 11 marlas was filed by Dewan Singh plaintiff on 9-3-1984 against his own sons, their vendees and against four sons of Gajjan Singh namely, Harbhej Singh, Avtar Singh, Baldev Singh and Saravjit Singh. The addresses of these defendants was given to be residents of village Kasel,, tehsil Tarn Taran, District Amritsar. Thus there were as many as 12 defendants in the suit. The defendants were served by substituted service, that is, by munadi in the village but as none of them appeared ex parte decree was passed by the trial Court on 13-3-1985. Harbhej Singh son of Gajjan Singh filed the application for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 2-8-1985 on the averments that he was not duly served He was living in Libya at the time when the suit was filed and decreed. Moreover, he is ordinarily residing at Plot No. 98, Professor Colony, Amritsar and not in village Kasel, tehsil Tarn Taran, the address given by the plaintiff. According to him, he came to know about the ex parte decree on 31-7-1985 and therefore, the application was within time which was filed on 2-8-1985. This application was resisted by Dewan Singh plaintiff on the ground that the said defendant was duly served. He was in the knowledge of the proceedings. He has concocted a story simply to mislead the Court and to delay the proceedings. The application is barred by time. The trial Court after framing the issues and allowing the parties to lead evidence came to the conclusion that there was no ground to set aside the ex-parte decree. There was no material on the record from which it could be concluded that the applicant Harbhej Singh did not have any notice of the pendency of the suit. The application was also held to be barred by time. In appeal the learned Additional District Judge affirmed the said findings of the trial Court.

(3.) ON the last date of hearing records of the case was sent for as it was necessary for the proper disposal of the case.