High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Naranjan Dass. v. Jit alias Mahi & Anr. - CR-4321-2006  RD-P&H 5142 (2 August 2006)
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh.
Civil Revision No.4321 of 2006.
Daqte of decision:21.8.2006.
Jit alias Mahi and another.
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice S. N. Aggarwal.
Present: Mr.D.K.Bhatti Advocate for the petitioner.
Kewal alias Mara respondent had filed a suit in October,1996 for declaration that he was the owner in possession of property No.1233 situated in village Jamsher on the basis of Will dated 2.9.1979 executed by her mother Smt.Gazo.
The petitioner was defendant No.1 while Jit alias Mahi, respondent was defendant No.2 in the said civil suit. The petitioner had appeared in the civil suit and contested the same while Jit alias Mahi,respondent was proceeded against ex parte. Respondent No.1 filed an application on 21.3.2006 for setting aside the order dated 2.12.1996 vide which he was proceeded against ex parte. This application was accepted by the learned trial Court vide impugned Civil Revision No.4321 of 2006.
order dated 1.5.2006 and ex parte proceedings qua Jit alias Mahi, respondent were set aside.
Hence, the present petition by Naranjan Dass, petitioner who was defendant No.1 in the learned trial Court.
The submission of learned counsel for the petitioner was that ex parte proceedings have been set aside after 10 years and,therefore, right which has accrued to the petitioner has been taken away by this order of the learned trial Court.
This submission has been considered. It has no legs to stand. The learned trial Court had observed that Kewal alias Mara respondent who was the plaintiff in the main suit had given the statement that he has no objection if ex parte proceedings against Jit alias Mahi are set aside. Moreover, it was held that this respondent was not served in the learned trial Court. Even the petitioner had not filed any reply to the application filed by respondent No.1 for setting aside ex parte proceedings against him.
The learned trial Court had accepted the application filed by the respondent No.1 on the principle that nobody should be condemned unheard. There is nothing wrong in the impugned order dated 1.5.2006 passed by the learned trial Court.
The next submission made by the learned counsel for the petitioner was that even as per order dated 1.5.2006, the respondent was burdened with Rs.3,000/- as a condition for accepting his application out of which Rs.1,000/- were to be paid to the petitioner on Civil Revision No.4321 of 2006.
the next date i.e. on 15.5.2006. A copy of the order dated 15.5.2006 was also placed on the file and it was submitted that the costs were neither tendered by respondent No.1 nor paid to the petitioner.
Order dated 15.5.2006 has been perused. This order does not reveal if any such objection was raised by the petitioner or if further proceedings were adjourned on account of non payment of costs. Even order dated 15.5.2006 has not been challenged in this revision petition.
In any case, the petitioner would be at liberty to take this objection in the learned trial Court which will be decided in accordance with law by the learned trial Court.
Keeping in view the discussion held above, this Court finds no legal infirmity in the impugned order dated 1.5.2006.
August 21,2006. ( S. N. Aggarwal )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.