R.S.A.No. 4101 of 2010(O&M) -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh R.S.A.No. 4101 of 2010(O&M) Date of Decision:October 29, 2010 Rai Singh ---Appellant versus Chand Kaur and others ---Respondents Coram: HONBLE MR. JUSTICE GURDEV SINGH *** Present: Mr.V.K.Jain, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Parshan Vashishth, Advocate for the appellant *** GURDEV SINGH, J. This second appeal has been preferred by Rai Singh-appellant- defendant No. 35 against the judgment and decree dated 27.3.2010 passed by Additional District Judge, Jhajjar, vide which he dismissed the appeal preferred by the present appellant and other defendants against the judgment and decree dated 14.1.1985 passed by Sub Judge Ist Class, Jhajjar, vide which the suit of Deep Chand, plaintiff(whose legal representatives have been impleaded in the present appeal as respondents No. 1 to 8), was decreed, on the basis of the compromise, perpetually restraining the defendant from interfering in his possession in agricultural land measuring 68 kanals situated in village Mundahera, Tehsil Kosli, District Rohtak, fully detailed in the heading of the plaint. For deciding this appeal, all the detailed facts need not be noticed. The only facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are R.S.A.No. 4101 of 2010(O&M) -2- that Deep Chand-plaintiff, filed suit for permanent injunction against the present appellant and 36 other defendants, which was decreed on the basis of the compromise entered into between the parties. He along with defendants No. 22, 24 to 28, 32 and 33 filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside that judgment and decree, on the ground that they had been proceeded against ex parte and that there were sufficient grounds for setting aside that judgment and decree. That application was decided against the appellant and others on merits, by Civil Judge(Senior Division), Jhajjar, vide order dated 23.7.2004. Against that order, an appeal was preferred but the same was withdrawn with permission to challenge the original judgment and decree by way of appeal. Thereafter, the appeal was preferred, which was dismissed vide above said impugned order. After the ex parte decree was passed against the appellant, two remedies were available to him. He could have preferred an appeal against the judgment and decree or he could have moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 for setting aside the same, as according to him, he had been proceeded against ex parte by the trial court. He preferred the second remedy and the application, so filed by him, was dismissed. After having availed that remedy, he could not have availed the other remedy of filing an appeal. The appeal so filed by him was correctly dismissed by the First Appellate Court. No substantial question of law arises in this appeal and the same is hereby dismissed. (GURDEV SINGH) JUDGE October 29, 2010 PARAMJIT