A liberal approach should be given by the law courts so that substantial justice must be imparted to the litigants so that they may not conceive a wrong impression from our judicial system that the law of the land has gone down in the deep sea.

R.L.Anand, J.

1. This is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 3.2.1999 passed by Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, who affirmed the order dated 27.5.1997 passed by Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, who dismissed the applications of Paramjit Singh under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. and Section 5 of the Limitation Act.

2. The brief facts of the case can be described in the following manner:-

Faquir Singh, respondent (plaintiff in the trial Court) filed a suit against Kabul Singh, Paramjit Singh etc. The suit was to the effect that the defendants be restrained from taking forcible possession of the land in dispute which, according to Faquir Singh, is in his possession. Paramjit Singh was defendant No. 2 in the trial Court. Notice of the suit was given to the defendants. Defendants Nos. 1 and 3 were proceeded ex parte. The suit was contested by Paramjit Singh, defendant No. 2, who even engaged a counsel and filed the written statement. The case was earlier pending in the court of Mr. G.K. Dhir and then it was transferred to the Court of Mr. Harjinder Pal Singh. The case was fixed on 30.1.1995 when neither the defendant No. 2 nor his counsel appeared as a result of which defendant No. 2 was also proceeded ex parte. Thereafter ex parte evidence was recorded and finally vide judgment and decree dated 24.3.1995 ex parte decree was passed in favour of the plaintiff restraining the defendants from dispossessing the plaintiff forcibly from the suit property. Defendant No. 2 Paramjit Singh filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. along with application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for setting aside the ex parte decree and he further submitted that he came to know about the ex parte decree on 12.6.1995 and he did not waste any time from the date of the knowledge and he filed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. on 14.6.1995. The case which was set up by Paramjit Singh in the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. as well as in the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act was that he was suffering from dysentery and he was unable to move on 30.1.1995. When he contacted his lawyer and came to know about the passing of the ex parte decree, he made the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. along with the application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for setting aside the ex parte decree. Notice of the application was given to the plaintiff who contested the claim of defendant No. 2 Paramjit Singh. The following issues were framed by the Executive Court:-

1. Whether there are sufficient grounds for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 24.3.1995? OPA

2. Whether the application is within the time? OPA

3. Relief.

The learned Executing Court decided both the issues against Paramjit Singh defendant No. 2 and dismissed his applications. Aggrieved by the order of the lower court Paramjit Singh then filed the first appeal before the Court of Additional District Judge, Ludhiana, who for the reasons given in para No. 11 of the judgment dismissed the appeal and thus aggrieved by the dismissal order dated 3.2.1999, the present revision.

3. I have heard Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Advocate on behalf of the petitioner, Mr. Suneel Chadha, Advocate on behalf of the respondent and with their assistance I have gone through the records of this case.

4. Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure lays down that in any case in which a decree is passed ex parte against a defendant, he may apply to the court by which the decree was passed for an order to set it aside; and if he satisfies the Court that the summons was not duly served, or that he was prevented by any sufficient cause from appearing when the suit was called on for hearing, the Court shall make an order setting aside the decree as against him upon such terms as to costs, payment into Court or otherwise as it thinks fit and shall appoint a day for proceeding with the suit: Provided that where the decree is of such a nature t