C.R.No.4935 of 2008 #1# IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.R.No.4935 of 2008 Date of decision: 24.8.2011 Haryana Urban Development Authority and another ….Petitioners Vs. Muni Lal through legal representatives ….Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. A.K. Kansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the respondents. Jaswant Singh, J Defendant-petitioner/HUDA has filed the instant revision petition under Section 115 CPC for setting aside the impugned judgment dated 8.5.2008 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kaithal vide which their appeal against the order dated 6.2.2008 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kaithal dismissing the application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 23.10.2006 as well as ex parte proceedings order dated 24.3.2006 has been dismissed. Brief facts of the case are that the plaintiff Munni Lal (since deceased) filed a Civil Suit No.514/2003 for mandatory injunction directing the defendants-petitioners to allot a residential plot being an oustee. Upon notice, the defendants-petitioners appeared and filed their joint written C.R.No.4935 of 2008 #2# statement. Plaintiff Munni Lal (since deceased) reiterated his stand by filing replication and on the basis of pleadings issues were framed by the learned trial Court. Thereafter, none appeared on behalf of the defendants- petitioners and consequently they were proceeded against ex parte vide order dated 24.3.2006. Ultimately the suit was decreed ex parte vide judgment and decree dated 23.10.2006 passed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge (Sr. Divn.), Kaithal. Thereafter, an execution petition No.14 dated 17.2.2007 was filed for execution of the judgment and decree referred above and during those proceedings, an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings as well as ex parte judgment and decree dated 24.3.2006 and 23.10.2006, respectively, were filed on 8.8.2007. It is necessary to mention here that an application for condonation of delay was also filed but all the applications were opposed by filing replies by the plaintiff Munni Lal (since deceased). After hearing both the sides, learned trial Court vide order dated 6.2.2008 dismissed all the applications. On an appeal having been filed, the same has also been dismissed by the learned Additional District Judge vide order dated 8.5.2008, hence the present petition. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book, this court does not find any merit in the petition and the same deserves dismissal. Learned counsel for the petitioners argues that initially HUDA had engaged Sh. S.S. Malik, Advocate and they were under the impression that the said Advocate is conducting the case on their behalf but in fact they were proceeded ex parte on 24.3.2006 and ultimately the ex parte judgment and decree were passed on 23.10.2006. Petitioners came to know only on 19.7.2007 and immediately application dated 8.8.2007 was filed for setting C.R.No.4935 of 2008 #3# aside the ex parte judgment and decree along with condonation of delay and that prior to this they were having no knowledge about the ex parte proceedings and as such the impugned order is liable to be set aside. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents argues that in an identical situation, the brother of the respondents namely Des Raj had also filed a Civil Suit and the same was decreed ex parte and he has been allotted a plot by the petitioners-HUDA. It is further argued that there are many identical cases in which plots have been allotted to various oustees and he has given the instance of cases decided by this court. Not only this, the name of the plaintiff-respondent was in the list prepared by the petitioners-HUDA of the persons entitled for allotment of the plot. It is further argued that the respondents-legal representatives of deceased Munni Lal have already been allotted a plot No.160-P (10 Marla) in Sector 20, Urban Estate Kaithal vide order dated 21.9.2010 and as such the present petition has been rendered infructuous. A perusal of order dated 6.2.2008 reveals that the assertion of the petitioners that they engaged Sh. S.S. Malik, Advocate on their behalf and were under the impression that he is defending their case and they came to know about the ex parte judgment and decree dated 23.10.2006 only on 19.7.2007 is absolutely wrong in view of the fact that the case was withdrawn from Sh. S.S. Malik, Advocate vide memo No.5492 dated 28.10.2005. Thus, it is all mystery that who was authorized on behalf of the petitioners-HUDA to defend the case in place of Sh. S.S. Malik, Advocate. It was further brought to the notice of the learned Executing Court that copy of ex parte judgment and decree dated 23.10.2006 was handed over to the defendant-petitioners in the Lok Adalat held by HUDA and statement of C.R.No.4935 of 2008 #4# plaintiff-Munni Lal in respect thereof was recorded by the defendants- petitioners on 29.1.2007 and the certified copy of the same was available on the court file. Thus, the assertion of the defendants-petitioners that they came to know about the ex parte judgment and decree only on 19.7.2007 was rightly found to be incorrect by the learned court below. Be that as it may, it is a fact that initially the counsel was engaged by HUDA through whom written statement was filed and issues were framed by the learned trial Court but thereafter none appeared. It was the duty of the defendants-petitioners to remain in touch with their counsel as they were very well aware about the pendency of the case. Furthermore, as per the office order dated 18.9.1989 issued by the then Chief Administrator, HUDA (enclosed with the paper book), the Estate Officer is supposed to keep the Administrator informed of the stages of the cases. It is not in dispute that as per the entitlement of said Muni Lal (since deceased) vide order dated 21.9.2010, a residential plot No.160-P (10 Marla) in Sector 20, Urban Estate Kaithal has already been allotted to his legal representatives and possession whereof was handed over and Certificate dated 2.11.2010 in token thereof was issued by the Junior Engineer Office of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Kaithal. It is also necessary to mention here that in similar oustees cases pertaining to HUDA, Kaithal itself the residential plots have already been allotted, detail of which as supplied by the learned counsel for the respondents is as under: Sr. No. Case in High Court Date of Decision 1 RSA No.83 of 2005 17.1.2005 2 RSA No.274 of 2004 08/08/05 3 RSA No.2097 of 2009 21.5.2009 4 RSA No.2098 of 2009 21.5.2009 5 RSA No.3078 of 2009 26.8.2010 6 RSA No.3079 of 2009 26.8.2010 C.R.No.4935 of 2008 #5# Keeping in view the facts and circumstances discussed hereinabove, this Court finds no illegality or perversity in impugned judgment dated 8.5.2008 passed by the learned Addl. District Judge, Kaithal warranting interference under Section 115 CPC. Dismissed. August 24, 2011 ( JASWANT SINGH ) manoj JUDGE