CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9567 OF 2011 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: MAY 27 ,2011 Ved Parkash Sehtiya and another .....Petitioners VERSUS Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. Ved Parkash Sehtiya, petitioner No.1 in person and on behalf of petitioner No.2. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. This writ petition is filed by Ved Parkash Sehtiya alongwith his wife, Renu Sehtiya. Mr.Ved Parkash Sehtiya thereafter appeared as a counsel to argue this petition. This writ petition has been filed primarily to espouse the grievance of petitioner No.2, who was employed in the Punjab National Bank and was dismissed on 27.1.2007. The dismissal order has been subject matter of challenge through number of writ CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9567 OF 2011 :{ 2 }: petitions, reference to which has been made in this writ petition as well. It is noticed that Petitioner No.2 is in the habit of approaching this Court against one grievance after another instead of making one comprehensive petition. The issue primarily in this case arises from the order of dismissal of petitioner No.2. She had been in possession of House No.B-19/125, Mohalla Seenpura, Kapurthala, though her husband, petitioner No.1 would claim possession thereof. It is also noticed that some amount has been deducted from the Provident Fund Account of petitioner No.2 on account of over-draft facilities that she had obtained from the Bank. The Bank had also filed a civil suit for recovery of `6,50,595/-, which was decided on 1.12.2008. Petitioner No.2 was proceeded ex-parte. Petitioner No.2, therefore, has filed an application for recall of this order on the ground that no summons were served on her. As per the petitioners, petitioner No.2 learnt about the ex-parte decree only on 28.4.2009. She thereafter filed a writ petition No.6490 of 2009 before this Court to impugn this exparte decree. This writ petition, however, was dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to file appeal before District Judge, Kapurthala. Petitioner No.2 thereafter filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC alongwith an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act for recall of the order, which is pending adjudication. In the meantime, proceedings under the Securitization & Reconstruction of Financial Assets & Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (for short, “the Act”), have also been initiated and notice under Section 13(2) of the Act was issued to petitioner No.2, against which she had filed objections. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9567 OF 2011 :{ 3 }: petitioners again have now filed this writ petition with a grievance that Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, has not decided the application filed under Section 151 C.P.C. Prayer again is made for quashing the exparte decree dated 1.12.2008 passed by the Civil Judge and so also the proceedings, which are initiated under the Act, as a consequence of this exparte decree. Prayer further is made for directing the respondents not to proceed with execution or trial for want of jurisdiction. Even stay of the execution is also prayed for. Petitioner No.1 could not explain as to how he would have a cause to be a petitioner in person, unless he was appearing as a counsel for petitioner No.2, who is his wife. All the proceedings are against petitioner No.2 and petitioner No.1 has no locus to file any proceedings or petition. While appearing, he could not explain how writ would be competent to seek setting-aside of exparte decree passed by Civil Court. This position was explained to petitioner No.2, when she filed Civil Writ Petition No.6496 of 2009, as can be seen from the order dated 29.4.2009. The order reads as under:- “The petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to set aside the judgment and decree dated 1.12.2008 passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala. She also seeks a restraint order against the respondent-Bank against auctioning of her residential house for the purpose of execution of the money decree. The writ petition has been filed in person. The petitioner has been heard at some length. On being apprised that against the civil court decree, she CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9567 OF 2011 :{ 4 }: has a right to prefer a civil appeal before the District Judge, she seeks permission to withdraw this writ petition with liberty to file an appeal before the learned District Judge at Kapurthala. Ordered accordingly. Suffice it to say that if the petitioner files an appeal before the learned District Judge at Kapurthala along with an application for condonation of delay (if the appeal is barred by limitation) as well as an application for ad- interim stay, the learned District Judge shall consider and dispose of both the applications sympathetically and in accordance with law.” Still, petitioner No.2 has joined hands with her husband to file the present writ petition primarily to claim the same or similar relief. The petitioners have chosen to do so despite having invoked the jurisdiction of Civil Court to seek recall of the exparte order. Either the petitioners are novices and are oblivious of the niceties of law or are purposely doing so, which leads to wasting the time of the Court. Petitioner No.1 in this regard was specifically questioned, as he was appearing as a counsel as well. He was frank enough to admit that he was not exactly aware of the legal position. The Court had earlier explained to petitioner No.2 with lot of patience about the mode that she was required to adopt but still, she has refused to learn. Petitioner No.1, being a counsel, can not take shelter behind ignorance on his part and must make mends to learn the provisions of law before filing any such petition. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.9567 OF 2011 :{ 5 }: This writ petition is wholly misconceived, misplaced and, thus, is dismissed. It would be appropriate to tell the petitioners to acquaint themselves with legal position and not to file any such frivolous petition in future which may invite penalty by way of costs. May 27,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE