##PAGE1##

CR No.3598 of 2015 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH

Reserved on 27th of November, 2025

Pronounced on 23rd of December, 2025

Uploaded on 23^rd of December, 2025

Whether only operative part of the judgment is pronounced? No

Whether full judgment is pronounced? Yes

CR No.3598 of 2015

Dr. S.P. Dhawan ....Petitioner

Versus

Kay Gee Finances Thr. its Proprietor and others .....Respondents

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN

Present : Mr. R. Kartikeya Iyer, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. Sarju Puri, Senior Advocate with

Ms. Anjila Guru, Advocate

for the respondents.

PANKAJ JAIN, J.

Present revision petition is directed against order dated

12.03.2015 whereby order dated 31.03.2010 passed by Civil Judge (Junior

Division), Chandigarh dismissing the application filed by the petitioner,

under Order IX Rule 13 CPC read with Order XXII Rule 4A CPC for setting

aside ex parte judgment and decree dated 05.02.2002 passed in Civil Suit

No.197/06.07.1994, has been dismissed with costs.

2. The lis relates to a residential property bearing House No.1858

situated in Section 22-B, Chandigarh, which was admittedly owned by

Ramji Dass son of Jiwan Dass, predecessor-in-interest of the petitioner.

DEEPAK KUMAR

2025.12.23 15:53

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR No.3598 of 2015 2

3. Respondent i.e., Kay Gee Financiers filed suit for possession by

way of specific performance w.r.t. the suit property propounding agreement

to sell, dated 14.05.1991 claimed to have been executed by Ramji Dass in

his favour. As per respondent/plaintiff, Ramji Dass was paid earnest money

of Rs.1,00,000/-. Balance consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- was to be paid

within 20 months of the agreement. As per the suit, balance sale

consideration of Rs.1,00,000/- was also paid to Ramji Dass in cash vide

receipt, dated 18.09.1991 and the documents w.r.t. property were handed

over to the plaintiff by Ramji Dass. Plaintiff in his suit claimed that Ramji

Dass having failed to execute the sale deed in his favour, plaintiff is entitled

for decree of specific performance.

4. Ramji Dass was served. He filed his written statement. Suit

was put to trial. During the pendency of the suit Ramji Dass died on

19.06.1996. An application was filed by the plaintiff for bringing on record

legal heirs of Ramji Dass. The same was allowed vide order dated

25.03.1998. Legal heirs of Ramji Dass i.e., the present petitioner and

proforma respondents No.2 to 6 were impleaded as defendants No.1 to 6.

The suit was ultimately decreed vide judgment and decree dated 05.02.2002.

5. Present application was moved by the petitioner under Order IX

Rule 13 CPC read with Order XXII Rule 4A read with Section 151 CPC

seeking setting aside of ex parte judgment and decree dated 05.02.2002. As

per the applicant, even some of the legal heirs of Ramji Dass were brought

on record, but no notice was ever sent to effectuate their service. They never

DEEPAK KUMAR

2025.12.23 15:53

I attest to the accuracy and

integrity of this document

CR No.3598 of 2015 3

authorized any advocate to appear on their behalf. During the pendency of

the suit, Lajwanti widow of Ramji Dass was also died on 26.05.2000. Her

death was never informed to the court. Applicant thus claimed that the

decree was passed against a dead person and even execution was being

proceeded against a dead person without effecting any service on the legal

heirs of Ramji Dass. Applicant claims that he came to know about the

execution proceedings just a day prior to the filing of application. As per the

applicant, plaintiff had an ulterior motive to seek proceedings at the back of

the defendants. The suit property was mortgaged with State Bank of Patiala.

No sale/attachment could be ordered as the same was the only residential

property of late Ramji Dass and was thus exempted under Section 60(1)(ccc)

of CPC from attachment. State Bank of India, the mortgagee, had already

proceeded against in a civil suit filed before High Court at Shimla. The suit

was decreed. In execution the