126 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7712-2025 Date of Decision: 30.10.2025 KRISHAN CHAND ....Petitioner Versus KAILASHO DEVI ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARMOD GOYAL Present: Mr. G.C. Shahpuri, Advocate for the petitioner.

Parmod Goyal, J. (Oral)

Present revision petition has been preferred by defendant/petitioner who is aggrieved by impugned order dated 30.05.2024 (Annexure P-4) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Sub Division Bilaspur vide which application preferred by petitioner was dismissed as well as by order dated 14.08.2025 (Annexure P-7) passed by learned Additional District Judge, Yamunanagar, whereby appeal against order dated 30.05.2024 was also dismissed. Petitioner had sought setting aside of ex parte order dated 20.08.2018 and ex parte judgment and decree dated 11.10.2021. Vide impugned judgments application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC preferred by petitioner was dismissed.

2. Admittedly on the date i.e. on 20.08.2018 when petitioner was proceeded ex parte, he was being represented by counsel. The fact that he was duly being represented by counsel goes to show that he was duly served in the suit for specific performance preferred by plaintiff. After appearing before the Court of first instance he took time to file written statement. However, neither written statement was filed nor petitioner or his counsel appeared on the date fixed i.e. on 20.08.2018 and accordingly, he was proceeded ex parte. Thereafter, the suit was partly decreed. It was found that defendant was not competent to execute agreement to sell and accordingly, relief of specific performance sought by plaintiff was declined, however, due execution of agreement as well as payment of earnest money was established and, therefore, petitioner was ordered to pay/return the earnest money vide judgment and decree dated 11.10.2021. Thereafter, on 12.01.2024 application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was preferred by petitioner seeking setting aside of order dated

20.08.2018 and ex parte judgment and decree dated 11.10.2021.

3. In the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC following issues were framed:-

1. Whether order dated 20.08.2018 and judgment and decree dated 11.10.2021 passed against the applicant/JD/ defendant is liable to be set aside under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC? OPP.

2. Whether the present application is not maintainable?

OPR

3. Relief.

4. Due opportunity was granted to both the parties to lead their respective evidence to prove their case. Learned Courts below after duly considering evidence led by parties concluded that since appellant was duly served and has failed to show any just cause for his non-appearance, he is not entitled to setting aside of order dated 20.08.2018 and ex parte judgment and decree dated 11.10.2021.

5. On consideration, this Court also finds that no fault with the impugned orders can be found. Both the orders i.e. one passed by the Court of first instance and another passed by First Appellate Court are reasoned orders based upon the facts and evidence on record. The only ground that petitioner was not informed by his counsel regarding the proceedings cannot be accepted in view of the fact that from 20.08.2018 till filing of application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC on 12.01.2024 for six years petitioner had not made any effort to inquire about his case. This inaction on the part of petitioner in fact goes to show that stand taken in application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC that his counsel had not informed is after thought and lame excuse. Petitioner cannot be absolved from his primary duty to inquire about the case and non-inquiry for about six years in fact goes to show that a false plea is being taken by the petitioner only to avoid execution of judgment dated 11.10.2021 at belated stage. In these circumstances, no ground to interfere in orders passed by Courts below is made out.

6. Learned counsel for petitioner further submited that petitioner’s house is the onl