SANT KAUR Vs. KHAZAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MST. Sant Kaur alias Basant Kaur, defendent-petitioner has filed this revision petition against the order of the trial Court dated 9th March, 1981, dismissing her application under Order 9, Rule 23 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 15th November, 1956. She has also assailed the order of the learned District Judge, Hissar, dated 29th January, 1982 dismissing her appeal against the above referred order of the trial Court.

(2.) IN brief, the facts relevant for the disposal of this revision petition are that on 28th November,1955, Khazan Singh and Budth Singh plaintiff-respondents filed a suit for possession of the land in disputed located in the revenue estate of Mohammedpur Rohi, Tehsil Fatehabad. District Hissar against Mst. Sant Kaur deferidant-petitioner. Mst. Sant Kaur failed to appear before the frial Court despite service having been affected on her by substituted service by publication of notice in the Haryana Sandesh. Accordingly, on 15th November, 1956 she was ordered to be proceeded against ex-parte. The ex-parte decree was passed against her on that very day i. e. 15th November, 1956. Thereafter, on 26th August. 1975, she filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the ex-parte decree contending that she was not at all served in the parent suit and that the ex-parte decree was obtained at her back by the plaintiff-respondents She further maintained having never contracted Karewa marriage with Kartar Singh of village Dandrala Kharora, Tehsil Nabha. It was further averred that for the first time she learnt about the ex-parte decree on 13th August, 1975 when she contacted Khazan Singh plaintiff respondent in village Mohammedpur Rohi for realisiog the Batai and that on his refusal to pay the Batai, she engaged a lawyer who examined the file on 4th August, 1975 and came to know of the ex parte decree. Khazan Singh plaintiff-respondent resisted this application contending that the defendant petitioner had failed to attend the Court despite due service by publication of notice in the news paper. He further maintained that the defendant petitioner had affected Karewa marriage with aforesaid Kartar Singh and the remaining allegations of the defendant-petitioners were also controverted. In the alternative it was maintained that even if Mst Sant Kaur defendant-petit'oner had not contracted Karewa marriage with aforesaid Kartar Singh, he had become owner of the land in dispute by way of adverse possession.

(3.) IN support of her case before the trial Court, the defendant petitioner examined herself as A. W 4, besides examining aforesaid Kartar Singh as A. W. I. Bachan Singh A. W. 2 of village Dandrala Kharore and Bant Singh as AW 3 of village Datewal. Khazan Singh plaintiff respondent appeared as R. W. 1 besides examining Amar Singh as R. W. 2.