Article 137 Limitation Act applies to Order IX Rule 7 CPC applications; over five-year unexplained delay despite prior knowledge of suit bars setting aside ex parte proceedings on grounds of laches and lack of good cause.

JUDGMENT

DEEPAK GUPTA, J.

The petitioner is defendant No.2 in a civil suit bearing CNR No. PBSA02-001841-2019 titled 'Joginder Pal Narula and others v. Balwinder Singh @ Kaka and another', pending before the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar (Mohali). The petitioner was proceeded against ex parte on 10.01.2020.

2. An application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC (Annexure P-5) seeking setting aside of the ex parte proceedings was filed on 02.09.2025. The said application was dismissed by the trial Court vide order dated 10.11.2025 (Annexure P-1). Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has approached this Court by way of the present revision petition.

Submissions on Behalf of the Petitioner :

3.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that service of summons was not effected personally upon the petitioner. It is argued that service is shown to have been effected through the petitioner’s father, whereas the relationship between the petitioner and his father was strained, due to which the petitioner was never informed about the receipt of summons.

3.2 It is further submitted that the process server failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Order V Rule 15 CPC, which permits service upon an adult member of the family only when the defendant is absent from the residence for a considerable time. According to learned counsel, no such satisfaction was recorded.

3.3 It is also urged that the petitioner acquired knowledge of the pendency of the suit only a week prior to filing the application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC and that delay, by itself, cannot be a ground for rejection.

3.4 Lastly, it is contended that no period of limitation is prescribed for filing an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC.

Consideration by the Court

4. This Court has heard learned counsel for the petitioner at length and has carefully perused the impugned order as well as the record.

5. The impugned order reflects a detailed examination of the petitioner’s conduct and the surrounding circumstances. The trial Court has noticed that vide order dated 27.11.2019, an ad interim injunction was granted restraining the defendants from alienating the suit property or raising construction thereon. The plaintiff was directed to comply with Order XXXIX Rule 3 CPC and the matter was adjourned to 10.01.2020.

6. In compliance thereof, notice was sent to the defendants through registered post, and the postal receipt was placed on record on the same date, i.e., 27.11.2019. Additionally, notice was also sent through ordinary process.

7. Though the petitioner claimed that his correct name is “Varinderjeet Singh” whereas the summons mentioned “Varinder Singh”, it is not disputed that the father’s name and the address mentioned on the summons were correct. The process server reported that the petitioner’s father received the summons at his responsibility after having a conversation with the petitioner himself.

8. The matter does not rest here. One of the plaintiffs, Ashok Kumar, had lodged a complaint with the police alleging attempted encroachment by the defendants. In pursuance thereof, both parties were summoned to the police station, where pendency of the civil suit, with the next date of hearing fixed as 10.01.2020, was duly acknowledged. A compromise (Ex.P-6) was entered into between the parties, wherein both defendants, including the present petitioner, expressly agreed not to raise construction over the suit property. The said compromise bears the signatures of the petitioner and unequivocally establishes h