CR No.682 of 2004 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 16.08.2010 Dalip Singh ... Petitioner Versus Smt. Kitabo Devi and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr.GS Nagra, Advocate, for the petitioner. None for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral): Petitioner herein, was the defendant in Civil Suit No.167 of 1985 filed by respondent Smt. Kitabo Devi, against the petitioner and respondent Nos. 2 to 4 in the Court of Sub Judge Ist Class, Bahadurgarh. In a suit filed by the respondent No.1 for declaration, she claims that she is the only legal heir of Sardar Singh and is solely entitled to receive the gallantry award of Rs.50,000/- of late Shri Sardar Singh. The defendants were proceeded against ex-parte and resultantly an ex parte decree dated 23.07.1986 (Annexure P-1) came to be passed. The petitioner who is one of the defendants in the suit, filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (hereinafter referred to as “CPC” ) before the trial Court. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 29.04.2000 (Annexure P-4) holding that the applicant has failed to show any sufficient ground to set aside the ex-parte decree. The order passed by the learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Bahadurgarh, dismissing the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was challenged by the petitioner before the learned Additional District Judge, Jhajjar. The learned Lower CR No.682 of 2004 -2- Appellate Court vide the impugned order dated 31.10.2003 dismissed the appeal. It is against this order that the present revision petition has been filed. One of the grounds urged by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the suit itself was barred by time and, thus, the decree could not have been passed by the learned trial Court. This cannot be a ground for setting aside the ex-parte decree. Admittedly, the ex-parte decree was passed in the year 1986, whereas the application for setting aside came to be filed after 10 years of the passing of the ex-parte decree. The trial Court has also come to the conclusion that the applicant-defendant was served through his brother Sube Singh on 28.1.1986. The Court preferred to intimate the applicant through Munadi for 06.03.1986. It has also been held that the applicant has failed to reveal the date when he acquired the knowledge of the passing of the decree. On the basis of the aforesaid ground, both the learned Courts below have rejected the application of the petitioner. The petitioner has not been able to rebut the findings recorded by the learned Court below on these counts. The only plea which is being vehemently pressed into service is that the suit itself was barred and the necessary persons were not made parties. This cannot be a ground for setting aside the decree. I find no valid ground to interfere with the findings of the learned Courts below which are based upon appreciation of evidence. Dismissed. 16.08.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE