IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Amit Rawal, J.
Jagdish Poonia - Appellant
Versus
Arun - Respondent
CR-3329 of 2015 (O&M)
Decided On : 27-05-2019
Code of Civil Procedure - Setting aside ex parte order - Order IX, Rule 13 - Section 202 of the Contract Act
Fact of the Case:
The plaintiff filed a suit for permanent injunction claiming ownership of a plot and seeking to restrain the defendant from transferring the plot. The defendant was proceeded ex parte due to refusal of summons, resulting in an ex parte judgment and decree.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the address discrepancy and delay in the application to set aside the ex parte order were not adequately considered by the lower courts. The court allowed the application and ordered the suit to be restored for trial.
Issues: Address discrepancy, delay in application, maintainability of the suit for injunction under section 202 of the Contract Act
Ratio Decidendi: The court considered the address discrepancy, delay in application, and the maintainability of the suit under section 202 of the Contract Act in setting aside the ex parte order.
Final Decision: The application under Order IX, Rule 13 of CPC is allowed, and the suit is ordered to be restored for trial.
JUDGMENT
Amit Rawal, J. - The present revision petition is directed against the orders dated 07.04.2010 and 05.02.2015, whereby the application dated 20.11.2003, under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the ex parte order, judgment and decree dated 30.04.2002 and 23.07.2003, has been dismissed.
2. The plaintiff-Bhagirath (deceased through LRs), instituted a suit by arraying the petitioner Jagdish Poonia son of Shiv Lal Punia, by giving the address as House No.408 Sector 40, near New National Law College, Gurgaon, Tehsil and District Gurgaon, claiming following relief:-
''Suit for permanent injunction to the effect that the plaintiff is owner of plot No.1556 Sector 14-P, Hisar and the plaintiff has cancelled the General Power of Attorney, vide registered document (Cancellation Deed) No.267 dated 08.10.2001, which was executed by the plaintiff in favour of defendant no.1, vide registered GPA No.148 dated 10.6.1996, therefore, the defendant No.1 has got no concern, title or interest in the plot of the plaintiff and therefore, the defendant No.1 be restrained from transferring the plot of the plaintiff and defendant No.2 be restrained from changing the record of owner of the disputed plot; on the basis of evidence both oral and documentary of every kind.''
3. In pursuance to the aforementioned notice, the trial Court, on 22.04.2002 and 30.04.2002, passed the following order:-
''Order dated 22.04.2002
Present: Shri Anil Bansal, counsel for the plaintiff.
The suit received by way of entrustment. It be checked and registered. Office report perused. The Ld. counsel for the plaintiff requested ad interim injunction restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property in any manner whatsoever. But before granting the injunction, I deem it proper to issue notice to the other party. Therefore, notice of the suit as well as injunction application be issued to the defendants for 30.04.2002, on filing of PF etc.
Order dated 30.04.2002
Present: Shri Anil Bansal, counsel for the plaintiff.
Ms. Usha Manda, counsel for defendant no.2.
None for defendant No.1.
Summons of defendant No.1 received back with a report that he refused to accept the summons. The report is supported by 1 witness. Therefore, the service is complete. The case called several times since morning. But none has turned up to appear on behalf of defendant No.1. It is already 3.15 pm. No further wait seems to be justified. Therefore, defendant No.1 is hereby proceeded ex parte. Adjournment request by Ld. counsel for the defendant No.2 for filing of written statement and reply. Therefore, written statement and reply be filed on 07.06.2002. However, keeping in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, defendant No.1 is hereby restrained from alienating the Plot in dispute in any manner and defendant No.2 is restrained from transferring the ownership of the Plot in dispute till that date.''
4. On perusal of the aforementioned orders, simply on the refusal of the summons and the report of the Process Server, allegedly witnessed by one witness, ex parte proceedings were initiated, resulting into, ex parte judgment and decree ibid.
5. Mr. Robin Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the plaintiff had entered into an agreement dated 10.06.1996 by executing a General Power of Attorney dated 10.06.1996, in favour of his client, duly registered, and Will in favour of Jagdish Punia, his son, against the valuable consideration. The GPA empowered the petitioner to get the plot bearing No.1556, Sector 14 (P), Hisar, for transfer, but owing to the cancellation, on 03.06.1997, the aforementioned right could not be exercised. The aforementioned plot was restored under the orders of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, on 28.09.2001. The address given in the memo of parties of the suit was not correct as the agreement dated 10.06.1996 contained the address as Jagdish Punia son of Shiv Lal Punia, resident of Mallapur, Tehsil
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.