In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Reserved On: 31.01.2025 Pronounced On: 25.04.2025 Satbir Gautam ... Petitioner(s)

Versus Suresh Chander and Others ... Respondent(s)

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present: Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Mr. Divanshu Kaushik, Ms. Simran Sharma and Ms. Manreet Kaur, Advocates for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Kulwinder Singh, Advocate for the respondents. Anil Kshetarpal, J.

I. Brief Facts

1. After having heard the learned counsel representing the parties, this Court is of the considered view that the petitioner is a victim of wrong legal advice which was compounded by an incorrect order passed by this Court in the previous round.

2. In this revision petition, the petitioner (defendant No.2 in a civil suit for recovery of ₹20,40,000/-) challenges the correctness of the First Appellate Court’s order dismissing his application for condonation of the delay of 1749 days in filing the appeal against an ex parte judgment and decree dated 01.12.2012.

3. The relevant facts, in brief, are required to be noticed in order to DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ understand the controversy involved in the present case. Suresh Chander and Devinder Kumar filed a suit for recovery of ₹20,40,000/- (principal amount of ₹15,00,000/-) on the basis of an agreement to sell executed by Rajinder Singla son of Ram Parshad-respondent No.3 (defendant No.1). In fact, Pritam Kaur, Gurmail Singh, Daya Singh, Harmail Kaur, Ajaib Singh, Avtar Singh, Harnam Singh, Gurmail Kaur and Parminder Kaur, agreed to sell their landed property for ₹2,20,00,000/- in favour of Rajinder Singla, who, in turn, further entered into an agreement to sell in favour of respondents No.1 and 2 (plaintiffs) on 14.05.2003. The petitioner herein signed the aforesaid agreement to sell as a witness. Para 5 of the aforesaid agreement reads as under:-

“5. That in case any dispute arises between the 1^st, 2^nd and 3^rd parties of this agreement, the same shall be resolved by sole arbitrator Satbir Gautam son of Shri Dhajja Ram Gautam, resident of Quila Zafargarh, Tehsil Julana, District Jind (Haryana) whose decision shall be final and binding on all these parties.

4. As is evident, the petitioner was not a party to the agreement to sell but was a marginal witness and named arbitrator. The plaintiffs filed a suit on 11.05.2006 for recovery of the amount alleging that the petitioner herein lured them to enter into an agreement to sell and on the assurance of the petitioner, he paid ₹15,00,000/- to defendant No.1-Rajinder Singla. The petitioner as well as Rajinder Singla were proceeded against ex parte. The petitioner was proceeded against ex parte on the basis of presumption that a registered notice sent to him should have been served upon him. The DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ petitioner claims that the aforesaid notice was returned with the report that he was not found residing at the given address. However, he was wrongly proceeded against ex parte. The petitioner filed an application on 17.07.2009 for setting aside the ex parte proceedings which was dismissed on 27.11.2009 which, in turn, was challenged by the petitioner in Civil Revision No. 811 of 2010 which was disposed of with the following order:-

“CM No.2999-CII of 2010 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions.

CR No.811 of 2010 This is defendant's revision petition challenging the impugned order dated 27.11.2009 whereby his application to set aside the ex parte order 25.2 2008 has been dismissed. An order passed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC rejecting the application (in a case open to appeal) to set aside the ex parte-decree is appealable under Order 43 Rule 1(d) CPC.

Faced with this situation, learned counsel for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to seek an appropriate remedy available to him in accordance with law.

With the aforesaid liberty, this petition is ordered to be dismissed as withdrawn.”

5. Thereafter, the petitioner filed an appeal before the First