102

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CR-3309-2021 (O&M)

Date of Decision: December 13, 2022

Neelam Rani

...Petitioner

V/S

Gaurav Madaan and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ARCHANA PURI

Present:

Mr. Sachin Gupta, Advocate for

Ms.Varinder Kaur Warraich, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr.Gaurav Datta, Advocate

for respondent No.1.

****

ARCHANA PURI, J.

Challenge in the present revision petition is to the judgment

dated 20.04.2021 passed by learned Addl. District Judge, thereby, affirming

the order dated 13.02.2021 (Annexure P-12) passed by learned Civil Judge

(Sr. Divn.), whereby, an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, filed by

the petitioner was dismissed.

The background facts, having bearing on the controversy, in

nutshell, are as follows:-

That, initially, respondent-plaintiff Gaurav Madaan had filed a

suit for seeking recovery of Rs.4 lakh against Ms/ Shankar Lal Kashmiri Lal

through its partner Chiranji Lal and he also impleaded three partners of the

VINEET GULATI

2022.12.14 15:56

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CR-3309-2021

-2-

aforesaid firm as defendants No.2, 3 and 4. The present petitioner was

impleaded as defendant No.3, in the aforesaid suit. However, the suit was

only contested by respondent No.4 Kashmiri Lal, whereas, defendants No.1

to 3 (including present petitioner) were proceeded against ex-parte.

Ultimately, the suit was decreed on 21.05.2019.

On coming to know about passing of the ex-parte judgment in

the aforesaid suit, the petitioner-defendant No.3 filed an application under

Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment dated

21.05.2019 and ex-parte order dated 13.07.2018. However, the said

application was dismissed vide order dated 13.02.2021 and lower

Appellate Court, affirmed the said order vide impugned judgment dated

20.04.2021.

Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner-defendant No.3, has filed the

present revision petition.

In pursuance of the notice issued, contesting respondent No.1

made appearance through counsel.

Learned counsel for the parties heard and record perused.

In the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC, the stand taken

by petitioner-defendant No.3 is that summons regarding institution of the

suit were never served upon her nor any effective service was effected

upon her. In this manner, she was not at all aware about the pendency of

the suit. Further, it is claimed that the plaintiff (respondent No.1 of the

present case) is a clever person and he must have procured false report on

the summons, allegedly issued to defendant No.3 (petitioner) that

defendant No.3 has refused to accept the summons, whereas, neither any

VINEET GULATI

2022.12.14 15:56

I attest to the accuracy and

authenticity of this document

Chandigarh

CR-3309-2021

-3-

Process Server had visited the house of the defendant No.3-petitioner nor

any other effective information was received by her, which clearly shows

that the report, is a result of active collusion between plaintiff-respondent

No.1 and the Process Server and the same had been procured by the

plaintiff-respondent No.1 for obtaining ex-parte judgment. Moreover, the

alleged refusal report also does not bear the signatures of any respectable

person of the neighbourhood or the MC of the area. The ex-parte order as

well as the ex-parte judgment are against the principle of natural justice, as

no effective opportunity of hearing was ever afforded to defendant No.3

(petitioner) and that it is settled law that no one should be condemned

unheard. Now, under the guise of the ex-parte judgment dated

21.05.2019, the plaintiff-respondent No.1 is all out to get the same

implemented. Rather, there are relevant grounds with defendant No.3-

petitioner to defend the suit on merits and there is every possibility of

dismissal of the suit, on the basis of the material available on record.

In reply, plaintiff-respondent No.