DINESH KUMAR Vs. PANKAJ KUMAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) MATERIAL facts necessary for the adjudication of this petition are that respondent -plaintiff (hereinafter referred to as 'plaintiff ' for convenience sake) instituted a suit against the petitioner for specific performance of contract/agreement dated 2.5.2006. Petitioner was proceeded ex parte on 3.3.2009. learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court, Chamba decreed the suit preferred by the plaintiff bearing Civil Suit No. 2/2008/2006 on 5.3.2009. Petitioner was directed to execute sale deed of the suit property in favour of the plaintiff on receipt of balance sale consideration within a period of one month from the date of judgment as per agreement dated 2.5.2006 and in case of failure on the part of the petitioner to execute sale deed, then the plaintiff was entitled to get the sale deed registered through court by execution of this decree. It was clarified that if the balance sale consideration was not paid by the plaintiff to the petitioner or deposited in the court within stipulated period then the suit of the plaintiff was to be dismissed. Petitioner preferred an application under order 9 rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte decree dated 5.3.2009. He also filed separate application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay for filing the application under order 9 rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure. It was registered as Civil Misc. No. 136/2010. According to the petitioner, he came to know about the ex parte decree only on 3.10.2010. Thereafter, he moved an application for obtaining copy of judgment and decree on 5.10.2010. The same was supplied to him on 8.10.2010. Thereafter, he moved an application on 22.10.2010 for setting aside ex parte decree. The application was contested by the plaintiff. According to him, petitioner knew about the ex parte order dated 5.3.2009. Learned Additional District Judge, Fast Track Court framed issues on 21.12.2010. He dismissed the application on 18.5.2011. Hence, the present petition.

(2.) MR . Anand Sharma has strenuously argued that the order passed by the court below is not sustainable.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record carefully.