The courts must ensure that defendants have substantive knowledge of a decree before imposing liability, adopting a holistic view in matters of ex parte judgments.

JUDGMENT :

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

A highly hyper-technical view has been taken by both the Courts below while refusing to set aside the ex parte decree for the recovery of the amount forcing the petitioners (legal representatives of the defendant late Sh.Chandgi Ram) to file this revision petition.

2. In order to comprehend the issue, which requires adjudication in this case, the relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed. The respondent/commission agent filed a suit for the recovery of Rs.19,40,271/- against late Sh.Chandgi Ram, a Farmer. Pursuant to the court notice, late Sh.Chandgi Ram appeared to contest the suit and filed the written statement. On 24.10.2011, late Sh.Chandgi Ram was proceeded against ex parte as the learned counsel representing him did not appear. It has come in evidence that late Sh.Chandgi Ram died on 12.01.2012 i.e. after a period of 1 1/2 month from the date he was proceeded against ex parte. The ex parte judgment and decree for recovery of the amount was passed on 22.04.2013 without impleading the legal representatives of late Sh.Chandgi Ram as this fact was never brought to the notice of the trial Court. The decree holder has filed the execution petition against late Sh.Chandgi Ram. When the summons were sent to him, the Process Server reported that he has died. At that stage, the legal representatives of late Sh.Chandgi Ram filed an application under Order XI rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (hereinafter referred to as "CPC") to set aside the ex parte decree and they also filed the objections in the execution petition. It was asserted by the legal representatives of late Sh.Chandgi Ram that he was suffering from lung cancer and he was under the rigorous treatment from the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research at Chandigarh (hereinafter referred to as "PGIMER"). However, the trial Court as well as the First Appellate Court dismissed the application and assailing the correctness of said order the petitioners have filed the present revision petition.

3. From the perusal of the order passed by the First Appellate Court, it is evident that the Court has presumed that the petitioners being the sons of late Sh.Chandgi Ram, were having the knowledge of the pending suit as they were residing in the same house along with late Sh.Chandgi Ram.

4. Heard the learned counsel representing the parties at length and with their able assistance, perused the paper-book.

5. Though, the learned counsel representing the respondent submits that the petitioners have failed to produce sufficient material to prove that late Sh.Chandgi Ram was suffering from lung cancer, however, in this Court, the document (Annexure P12) has been produced which proves that in the month of November, 2018, late Sh.Chandgi Ram was under the treatment from the Lung Cancer Clinic, Department of Pulmonary Medicine, PGIMER at Chandigarh. While filing the application for setting aside the ex parte decree, the petitioners have asserted this fact which is supported by their affidavit. As already noticed, late Sh.Chandgi Ram died within a period of 1 1/2 month from the date he was proceeded against ex parte. In these circumstances, the Courts should have taken a holistic view of the matter. The Courts are required to have a pragmatic approach while deciding such applications. It is well settled principle that the rules of procedure are the handmaids of justice. The First Appellate Court has erred in assuming that the children of late Sh.Chandgi Ram had the knowledge of the pending suit. The expression "knowledge" is required to be interpreted to mean the complete and substantive knowledge of the pending suit, the stage at which it is pending, the name of the Court and the next date of hearing. Reliance in this regard can be placed upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in Panna Lal vs. Murari Lal (dead) by LRs , AIR 1967 SC 1384 . The relevant discussion made therein reads as under:-

"(4) In Pundlick Rowji v. Vasantrao Ma