Civil Revision No. 2406 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No. 2406 of 2009 Date of decision: 15.05.2009. Dev Chand Petitioner Versus Ajay Singh ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Sanjay Mittal, Advocate for the petitioner ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The plaintiff-respondent had filed a suit for recovery ( of certain amount) against the defendant-petitioner. The suit came to be decreed exparte vide judgment and decree dated 24.1.2002. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a plea under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 C.P.C. which came to be declined by the learned Trial Court, vide order dated 17.10.2006. In the course of the impugned order, the learned Trial Court recorded a precise finding that the plea was time barred. In that context, it noticed that the petitioner had not even made a mention of any cause of delay in the course of the affidavit. (“He did not mention even a single word in his affidavit Ex. AW2/A in respect of causing delay for filing of the present petition.”). The petitioner filed an appeal which, too, came to be declined by the learned District Judge, Narnaul vide order dated 19.11.2008. In the course of that order, the learned District Judge Civil Revision No. 2406 of 2009 -2- also upheld the finding on point of limitation by noticing that, on the own showing of the petitioner, he had filed an application on 31.5.2004 to obtain certified copy of the judgment. The copy of the judgment came to be supplied to him on 11.6.2004. However, inspite thereof, the plea under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. came to be filed on on 15.9.2004. It was further held that there was absolutely no cogent evidence on the file to prove that the petitioner had been prevented by any sufficient cause from filing the plea in time. It was further noticed that though the petitioner had raised a plea that he was under the treatment of a private Doctor, he had not adduced any evidence in support thereof. The learned counsel for the petitioner is not in a position to argue that there is any factual error in the course of the impugned judgment of the learned Trial Court or the learned Ist Appellate Court. For the reasons noticed by the learned Trial Court and also learned District Judge and quoted in the foregoing paras of this order, it is apparent that both the Courts had recorded a well reasoned finding that the plea under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. was time barred. Even if it is assumed that the fact of exparte decree came to the notice of the plaintiff-petitioner on 31.5.2004 and limitation is to be counted with effect from that date, the plea under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. filed on 15.9.2004 was clearly time barred. In the light of the foregoing discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of force and is ordered to be dismissed in limine. May 15, 2009 (S.D.Anand) Pka Judge Civil Revision No. 2406 of 2009 -3-