The court established that legal representatives of a defendant who has been proceeded against ex parte should have the opportunity to contest the matter, and limitation for setting aside such decrees begins from the date of knowledge.

JUDGMENT :

SUDEEPTI SHARMA J.

1. The prayer in the present petition is to set aside the ex parte order dated 31.08.2015, ex parte judgment and decree dated 07.04.2016 and order dated 09.11.2023 passed by learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Patiala, dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC as well as the judgment dated 08.05.2025 passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Patiala.

2. Notice of motion.

3. On asking of this Court, Mr. Aakash Singla, Advocate, accepts notice and filed his Vakalatnama on behalf of respondent No.1.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the husband of petitioner No.1 i.e. Manjit Singh was defendant in a suit for recovery filed by the respondents/plaintiffs and husband of petitioner No.1/defendant was appearing in person. The matter was fixed for filing of written statement, but due to non-filing of written statement, cost of Rs.300/- was imposed by the trial Court vide its order dated 24.07.2015 and the matter was adjourned to 18.08.2015 for filing of written statement. On 18.08.2015, husband of petitioner No.1/defendant could not file written statement and the matter was again adjournment to 31.08.2025. He further submits that on 31.08.2015, due to illness of the husband of petitioner No.1/defendant, he could not appear before the learned trial Court and he was proceeded against ex parte. Thereafter, husband of petitioner No.1/defendant was arrested by the police after eight days i.e. on 09.09.2015 and he remained in custody till 16.03.2017. In the meantime, impugned judgment and decree dated 07.04.2016 was passed against the husband of petitioner No.1/defendant. Therefore, non-appearance of the husband of petitioner No.1/defendant was not intentional and due to unavoidable circumstances, he could not appear before the learned trial Court. Since the husband of petitioner No.1/defendant was in custody, therefore, he could not move any application for setting aside judgment and decree dated 07.04.2016. He relies upon the judgment passed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in G.P.Srivastava Vs. R.K.Raizada and others , 2000(3) SCC 54 as well as the judgments passed by this Court in Harmader Singh and others Vs. Malkiat Singh and another , 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 669, M/s N.K.Electronics Vs. Narinder Kumar , 2013(4) RCR (Civil) 143 and Baldev Singh Vs. Labh Singh , 2003(3) RCR (Civil) 592. Hence, he prays that the present petition be allowed.

5. Per contra, learned counsel for respondent No.1 submits that the husband of petitioner No.1/defendant was well aware of the proceedings and he appeared in other cases also through counsel. He further contends that limitation should not start from the date of the decree whereas it should start from the date when he was proceeded against ex parte. He further contends that the medical certificate of the husband of petitioner No.1 placed on record is not proved. He relies upon the judgment passed by the Full Bench of this Court in Shri Anand Parkash Vs. Shri Bharat Bhushan Rai and another , 1981 AIR Punjab and Haryana 269 and prays for dismissal of the present petition.

6. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the case file with their able assistance.

7. A perusal of the record shows that the respondents/plaintiffs filed a civil suit for recovery, wherein, husband of petitioner No.1/defendant was proceeded against ex parte. A perusal of the record further shows that husband of petitioner No.1/defendant could not appear on 31.08.2015 i.e. the date when he was proceeded against ex parte, due to his illness and he was admitted in the hospital. Thereafter, he was arrested on 09.09.2015 and remained in custody