IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 27.03.2025 Pronounced on :18.06.2025 Rajinder and others …Petitioners VS Mandir Shri Durga Ji (IDOL) and others …Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL Argued by: Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. A.K.Kansal, Advocate for respondent No.1.

None for respondents No.2 to 14.

****

VIKRAM AGGARWAL, J The petitioners who were defendants No.3, 9 and 16 in a suit for possession filed by the respondent-plaintiff (Mandir Shri Durga Ji (Idol)) have preferred the instant revision petition assailing the order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure P-9) passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Jind, vide which the application preferred by the petitioners under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963 for condonation of delay of 131 days in filing the appeal against judgment and decree dated 23.05.2016 (Annexure P-3) was dismissed.

2. A suit for possession (Annexure P-1) was instituted by the respondent-plaintiff against 16 defendants, 03 out of which are the present petitioners. Possession of agricultural land measuring 71 Kanals 19 Marlas (fully described in the plaint) situated in the revenue estate of village Intal Kalan, Tehsil and District Jind, was sought along with mesne profits from July 2008 to June 2011 and future mesne profits @ `30,000/- per acre per annum from the date of filing of the suit till the date of recovery along with interest at the rate of 18% per annum.

3. The defendants initially put in appearance and filed their written statement. Defendants No. 1 to 11 and 16 submitted written statement (Annexure P-2), whereas defendants No.12 and 13 submitted their separate written statement. However, thereafter, the defendants did not put in appearance as a result of which they were proceeded against ex parte. Subsequently, the defendants appeared again but thereafter, again did not appear, as a result of which they were again proceeded against ex parte. The suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 23.05.2016 (Annexure P-3) by the Court of Civil Judge (Jr. Division), Jind. An appeal was preferred by the present petitioners (Annexure P-4). The appeal was accompanied by an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act (Annexure P-5) which was opposed by way of reply (Annexure P-6). By way of the impugned order dated 16.11.2022 (Annexure P-9), the said application for condonation of delay was dismissed leading to the filing of the present revision petition.

4. Learned counsel for the parties were heard.

5. Sh. Sanjay Kaushal, learned Senior Counsel representing the petitioners strenuously urged that the impugned order is not sustainable. It was submitted that the delay was not such which should have led the Court to non-suit the petitioners on the ground of delay itself. He further submitted that matters should be decided on merits and should not be rejected on mere technicalities. Learned Senior Counsel, while referring to the sequence of events, submitted that after having being proceeded ex parte initially, the petitioners had put in appearance and the case had been adjourned to

12.01.2016. However, the matter was taken up on 11.01.2016 and the petitioners were proceeded against ex parte again. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that under the circumstances, the petitioners never came to know that they had been proceeded against ex parte and that eventually, the ex parte judgment and decree had been passed. It was submitted that the petitioners came to know about the judgment and decree having been passed only when summons as regards the execution proceedings were received by them. Learned Senior Counsel submitted that in view of the settled law on the subject, the impugned order is not sustainable. In support of his contentions, reliance was placed upon a judgment of the Supreme Court of India in the case of Inder Singh Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 Live Law (SC) 339

6. Per contra,