IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** C.R. No.7341 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision:02.12.2010 Om Parkash Sahota .....Petitioner Vs. Rajinder Kaur .....Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present:- Mr. Nand Lal Sammi, Advocate for the petitioner. **** RAKESH KUMAR GARG, J. (Oral) This is defendant's revision petition challenging the orders dated 29.9.2010 and 2.2.2010 whereby his application under Order 9 Rule 13 of CPC to set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 11.3.2008 passed by the Court of Ms. Jatinder Kaur, PCS, Additional Civil Judge, Senior Division, Patiala in favour of the plaintiff- respondent, was dismissed. As per the averments, the plaintiff- respondent instituted a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an agreement dated 24.5.2005. At the initial stage, the petitioner was represented through Shri Kulbir Singh and Dalbir Singh Bhinder, Advocates. Even written statement was filed by the petitioner and issues were framed on 19.2.2007. However, later on, counsel for the petitioner pleaded no instructions and the petitioner was proceeded against ex parte. Subsequently, an ex parte judgment and decree dated 11.3.2008 was passed against the petitioner. As per the averments, petitioner moved an application under C.R. No.7341 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the aforesaid judgment and decree on 15.4.2008. However, the aforesaid application was rejected by the trial Court vide order dated 2.2.2010 holding that as per the law of limitation, the prescribed period of 30 days had expired taking the date of knowledge from the date of decree, i.e. 11.3.2008 as per the application and, therefore the application was beyond the period of limitation and was barred by time. The appeal filed by the petitioner against the aforesaid order dated 2.2.2010 was also dismissed by the Additional District Judge, Patiala vide impugned judgment dated 29.9.2010. The present revision petition has been filed challenging the aforesaid orders. It is not in dispute that the provisions of Section 5 of Limitation Act are not applicable to the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC in the first instance. Since the application was filed beyond the period of limitation of 30 days as prescribed under Article 123 of the Limitation Act, no fault can be found with the impugned orders. It may also be noticed that in pursuance of the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 11.3.2008, the sale deed for the suit property had already been executed in favour of plaintiff- respondent with the intervention of the Court. Thus, no interference is warranted in the impugned orders. Dismissed. December 02, 2010 ( RAKESH KUMAR GARG ) renu JUDGE