Civil Revison No.859 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revison No.859 of 2009 Date of decision:02.02.2010. Anju ...Petitioner Versus Ram Parkash and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S.D.ANAND. Present: Mr. Rohit Khullar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Avnish Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.1. ***** S.D.ANAND, J. The petitioner herein filed a plea for setting aside of the ex- parte judgment dated 13.08.2005 on a pure and simple averment that she was a minor at the time the ejectment petition was filed and the petition could not have been decreed ex-parte against her without suing her through a guardian. The plea was negatived by the learned Rent Controller. That finding was affirmed by the learned Appellate Authority. It is vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the petitioner herein that both the Courts committed a grave error of law in not taking cognizance of the fact that it was none else or other than the respondent (petitioner before the learned Rent Controller) who had filed an application under Order 32 Rule 3 C.P.C. for the appointment of a Court guardian for the petitioner herein. The attention of the Court, in the context, was invited to a copy of the application which has been placed on record as Annexure P-1. The filing of that application, it is argued, was an Civil Revison No.859 of 2009 -2- acceptance on the part of the respondents herein of the fact that the petitioner herein was a minor. There was no reason why at all would that application have been filed otherwise. The plea is resisted on behalf of the respondent. It is argued that the Voter Identity Card Annexure P-6, produced by the petitioner herein herself, gives her age as 25 years as on 01.01.2008 and, on that premise, she was major during the relevant period of time. In further support of the act of resistance, reliance is also placed upon the statement made by the petitioner herein at the trial. The learned counsel for the petitioner herein is not in a position to deny that Annexure P-6 is a document relied upon by the petitioner herself. The contents thereof indicate that her age, as on 01.01.2008, stands recorded as 25 years. In that view of things, it is illogical for the petitioner herein to plead that she was a minor during the pendency of the ejectment proceedings. The filing of application Annexure P-1 by the respondent pales into insignificance in the light of that documentation. A party has to stand on its own legs to request for a finding in a cause. In this case, it was the plea. on behalf of the petitioner that she was minor throughout the trial of the ejectment proceedings. The onus was, thus, upon her to prove it. The mere fact that the respondent herein had filed application Annexure P-1, which may have remained undisposed of, would not enable the petitioner herein to wriggle out of the implication of Annexure P-6. Insofar as the merits of the controversy are concerned, it may be noticed that the petitioner herein had conceded, in the course of her statement, that she was aware of the ejectment proceedings from the very inception. She had also stated that she was aware of the grant of the ex- Civil Revison No.859 of 2009 -3- parte decree. It is also in her statement that Shri D.K.Mittal had appeared on her behalf in the ejectment proceedings. Smt. Shakuntla Devi, while appearing as AW1 in the proceedings for the setting aside of the ex-parte decree, also stated that the petitioner herein got married in the year 1996 and that she was a major at the time of her marriage. She also stated that the petitioner herein was aware of the ejectment proceedings. The relevant facts are noticed in para No.12 of the order under challenge, which is extracted hereunder: - “12. The applicant/respondent while appearing as AW2 admitted in her cross examination that she was aware of the ejectment proceedings right from the very beginning. She further admitted that she was aware of the date of ex-parte decree. She further stated that Sh. D.K.Mittal, Advocate, appeared on her behalf in the ejectment petition. Smt. Shakuntla, while appearing as AW1 also admitted that the applicant/respondent was married in the year 1996 and she was major at the time of her marriage. She further stated that she is giving her statement at the instance of applicant/respondent and she further stated that the applicant/respondent was aware of the ejectment proceedings.” In the light of the aforementioned discussion, the petition is held to be devoid of merit and ordered to be dismissed. February 02, 2010 (S.D.ANAND) vinod* JUDGE