The main legal point established is the importance of proper service of summons and the liberal construction of 'sufficient cause' for condoning delay in setting aside ex parte orders.

Ritu Bahri, J.

Petitioner-defendant No. 4-Rupinder Kaur has come up in revision petition against the order dated 20.11.2014 (Annexure P-6) passed by the Additional Civil (SD) Phillaur in Civil Suit No. 167-A of 21.5.2009 titled as Simardeep Singh and another v. Surinder Kaur and others by which an application filed by the petitioner-defendant No. 4 for setting aside the order dated 17.9.2009 vide which present petitioner was proceeded against ex parte has been dismissed.

2. Respondents No. 1 & 2-plaintiffs, Simardeep Singh and Harjot Kaur minor son and daughter of Jatinder Singh had filed a suit Annexure P-1 against their grand mother Surinder Kaur and other defendants challenging the sale deed executed by Jatinder Singh son of Harbhajan Singh in favour of Surinder Kaur widow of Harbhajan Singh as illegal null and void.

3. The facts of the case, in brief, are that Surinder Kaur, mother of the respondents No. 1 & 2-plaintiffs was married with defendant No. 3-Jatinder Singh on 13.6.1998. Out of this wedlock, two children Simardeep Singh and Harjot Kaur i.e respondents No. 1 & 2-plaintiffs were born. A dispute arose between defendant No. 3 and Surinder Kaur and a petition under Section 13 of Hindu Marriage Act was filed which was allowed ex parte on 24.4.2004. Surinder Kaur and respondents No. 1 & 2-plaintiffs filed a petition under Section 125 Cr.P.C which was allowed on 27.3.2009 by SDJM, Phillaur. As per the revenue record, the suit land was ancestral in nature and defendant No. 1-Surinder Kaur had no right to dispose of the land but she had a right to get earning from the said suit land. A padegreetable is used for better understanding of the case as under:

4. As per the above said padegreetable, the respondents No. 1 & 2-plaintiffs are members of joint Hindu Family and they have every right in the ancestral land in the hands of defendant No. 1 to 3 If defendant No. 4-Rupinder Kaur and defendant No. 5 Ravinder Kaur are included in the definition of the joint Hindu family than every member of the joint Hindu family has 1/6th share and in this way respondents No. 1 & 2-plaintiffs have 1/3rd share and defendants No. 2 to 5 have got 2/3rd share in the ancestral property. If defendants No. 1, 4 and 5 are not considered to be entitled to have share in the ancestral property then respondents No. 1 & 2-plaintiffs have 2/3rd share out of 1/2 share i.e share of Jatinder Singh in the ancestral land in suit. The property being ancestral in nature, Jatinder Singh could not alienate, sale, mortgage, transfer the ancestral land in question. But Jatinder Singh transferred his share in favour of Surinder Kaur widow of Harbhajan Singh to grab the share of respondents No. 1 & 2-plaintiffs in the suit land. Thus the mutation No. 2502 of sale in favour of Surinder Kaur entered and sanctioned by the revenue authority was illegal null and void.

5. Written statement was filed by defendant No. 1 (Annexure P-2) denying that the suit property was ancestral, joint Hindu family and coparcenary property. It was submitted that plaintiffs have no concern, title or right in the suit property. Defendant No. 2-Gurinder Singh filed written statement (Annexure P-3) on the same lines as was filed by defendant No. 1. It was denied that the suit land was ancestral, joint Hindu family, coparcenary property and that the plaintiffs had any right, title or interest in the property. Defendant No. 2 was residing along with his mother Surinder Kaur in the residential house in Khasra No. 1219 min (3-17). Jatinder Singh/defendant No. 3 executed a sale deed of the land measuring 10 K 18 1/2 m to his mother, Surinder Kaur vide registered sale deed dated 28.3.2003 and mutation No. 2502 had been sanctioned on the basis of the said sale deed.

6. On 17.9.2009, the petitioner-defendant No. 4 was proceeded ex parte and thereafter the application (Annexure P-4) was filed for setting aside the ex parte proceedings against applicant-defendant No. 4-Rupinder Kaur on the ground that