IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 12.01.2026

Kuldeep Singh ...Petitioner(s)

Vs.

Mishri Lal and others ...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON’BLE MS. JUSTICE NIDHI GUPTA

Present:- Mr. Puneet Sharma, Advocate with

Ms. Shravya Doomra, Advocate

for the petitioner.

***

NIDHI GUPTA, J.

Present Civil Revision Petition under Article 227 of

Constitution of India has been filed by defendant No.1 seeking setting aside of the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure P-2) passed in Civil Suit No. 57 of 04.03.2010; whereby suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 has been decreed exparte holding the plaintiff entitled to possession of suit property by way of specific performance of

Agreement to Sell dated 13.01.2009.

2. Brief facts of the case in chronological order are as follows: -

04.03.2010: Plaintiff had filed Civil Suit for possession by way of specific

performance of Agreement to Sell dated 13.01.2009 (Annexure P-1).

26.10.2015: Vide exparte judgment and decree dated 26.10.2015 (Annexure P-2), the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, had

decreed the suit of the plaintiff.

14.06.2016: After passing of exparte judgment and decree dated 26.10.2015, defendants No. 2 to 5 had filed an application dated 14.06.2016 before the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, seeking condonation of delay in filing the Civil Appeal. In the said application, it was pleaded by the said defendants that they came to know about the judgment and decree dated 26.10.2015 only on 26.04.2016. After obtaining copy of judgment and decree dated 26.10.2015, applicant Gurmeet Kaur/defendant No.2 had fallen seriously ill and remained bedridden; and therefore, the appeal could not be filed in time. Accordingly, condonation of delay was sought in filing Civil Appeal No.26 dated 15.07.2016.

6.3.2017: In the meantime, the plaintiff had initiated execution proceedings. In execution proceedings, objections filed by the petitioner was dismissed and Sale Deed dated 06.03.2017 was executed in favour of the decree holder/plaintiff/respondent

29.04.2017: Vide order dated 29.04.2017, the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana had dismissed the abovesaid application of the defendants No.2 to 5 under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for condonation of delay in filing the Civil Appeal; on the ground that applicant/defendant No.4 namely, Rajinder Pal Singh as AW1 had admitted in his cross-examination that judgment dated 26.10.2015 had come to their notice on 26.10.2015 itself and they did not apply for it for a period of 5 to 6 months.

27.09.2018: Against the said order dated 29.04.2017, defendants had preferred Civil Revision No. 4778 of 2017 titled as Gurmeet Kaur and others vs. Mishri Lal; which was dismissed by this Court as infructuous vide order dated 27.09.2018 (Annexure P-4). The operative part of the order dated 27.09.2018 reads as under: -

“Learned counsel for the respondent refers to para No.16 of the impugned order and contended that knowledge in respect of decree passed by the trial Court was very much available to the defendants on 26.10.2015 itself. One of the petitioners i.e. Rajinderpal Singh while appearing as AW1 had admitted this fact in his cross-examination that they came to know about the decree dated 26.10.2015 and they did not apply for obtaining certified copy of the judgment and decree for 5-6 months.

In addition to the aforesaid, learned counsel submitted that in execution proceedings in respect of decree dated 26.10.2015, judgment debtors-petitioners have duly appeared and filed their objections in the execution. The objections were dismissed and thereafter, sale deed dated 06.03.2017 has already been executed in favour of the decree holder-respondent by process of the Court.

Even though the issue regarding condonation of delay was involved in the present revision petition but in a way, this revision petition has become infructuous as no lis survives after execution of sale deed with the proc