GURNAM SINGH Vs. GURCHARAN SINGH AND OTHERS
LAWS(P&H)-2013-7-855
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on July 22,2013

GURNAM SINGH Appellant
VERSUS
Gurcharan Singh And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

Laxmi Narain Mittal, J. - (1.)APPLICATION is allowed and annexed reply on behalf of respondents no. 1 and 2 to C.M. No. 282 -C -II of 2013 is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions.
This is application for impleading legal representatives of some of the deceased defendants, out of whom some died before filing of the suit, and some died during pendency of the suit. However, instant revision petition has been filed by defendant no. 10 Gurnam Singh to challenge the orders of the courts below, whereby his application for setting aside ex -parte judgment and decree has been dismissed. Consequently, impleadment of legal representatives of other defendants is not required for the disposal of this revision petition. Accordingly, the instant application is disposed of.

Main Case:

Defendant no. 10 Gurnam Singh has filed this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India impugning order dated 29.07.2009 (Annexure P -8) passed by the trial court and judgment dated 11.09.2012 (Annexure P -10) passed by the lower appellate court, thereby dismissing application Annexure P -4 filed by the petitioner for setting aside ex -parte judgment and decree dated 09.02.1994 (Annexures P -1 and P -2).

(2.)SUIT instituted by respondents no. 1 and 2/plaintiffs was decreed ex -parte vide judgment and decree dated 09.02.1994 (Annexures P -1 and P -2).
(3.)DEFENDANT no. 10 -petitioner initially filed application dated 28.09.1994 (Annexure P -3) for setting aside the ex -parte judgment and decree alleging that he had learnt on 27.09.1994 only from Mangu Singh (cultivating the land of the petitioner) that plaintiffs had secured the aforesaid ex -parte judgment and decree. It was alleged that defendant no. 10 -petitioner was never served in the suit. His service by publication in newspaper - 'Daily Milap' was not valid service as it did not have circulation in the concerned area nor copy of the newspaper was sent to the petitioner at his residence in Village or at Chandigarh, where he was occasionally residing. In undated application (Annexure P -4) filed on 25.05.1998, the aforesaid version was reiterated and it was further alleged that application (Annexure P -3) fixed for 21.12.1995 for summoning of original suit record was not traceable on 21.12.1995 and thereafter, and therefore, fresh application Annexure P -4 was moved.
Both the courts below have dismissed the application Annexure P -4 filed by the petitioner, who has, therefore, filed this revision petition to challenge the orders of the courts below.



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.