IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Revision No.1063 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision 15.02.2011 Gurmit Singh and others ...... Petitioners VERSUS Harbhajan Kaur and another ...... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL Present: Mr.Padam Jain, Advocate, for the petitioners. ***** A.N.JINDAL, J: The Addl. District Judge, Kapurthala, vide order dated 06.12.2010 as well as the Addl. Civil Judge (Senior Division), Kapurthala, vide order dated 12.05.2009 dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree dated 16.07.2003. Factual background of the case is that a Civil Suit No.404 of 08.10.2002 titled as 'Harbhajan Kaur versus Boota Singh' for specific performance was filed which was decreed on 16.07.2003. Boota Singh came to know about the ex-parte decree on 01.08.2004, therefore, he filed an application for setting aside the ex-parte decree on 14.08.2004. However, he died thereafter and the application was represented by the petitioners. The said application was contested by the respondents. After hearing both the parties, both the Courts below held that Boota Singh- defendant was duly served in the suit but he did not intentionally appear in the Court. Even when he was served during the execution, he did not appear and as such, while holding that there was no sufficient ground for setting aside the ex-parte decree, the application was declined. Arguments heard. Having perused both the orders, it transpires Civil Revision No.1063 of 2011 -2- that Boota Singh was personally served for 14.11.2002. The trial Court while deciding issue No.1, has duly observed that Surjit Kaur admitted during his cross-examination that she came to know from the Lambardar after a week from 08.10.2002 that Harbhajan Kaur had filed a suit agianst her father. She also admitted that this fact was told by Harbhajan Kaur to her father. Besides, Harbhajan Kaur also examined Ram Parshad, Process Server (RW2), Arminder Singh, Process Server (RW3), Joginder Singh (RW5) and Piara Singh (RW6) to prove the service upon the defendant- Boota Singh. It would also be pertinent to mention here that the oral evidence given by Harbhajan Kaur is in consonance with the orders recorded by the Court in due course of its duty. The zimni order dated 04.11.2002 reveals that he was served but failed to appear in the Court. The impugned judgment further reveals that even after the decree was passed against Boota Singh on 16.07.2003, the execution was filed by Harbhajan Kaur and its notice was served upon Boota Singh, who refused to accept the notice, thereafter, he was served through munadi. Ultimately, Executing Court proceeded against him ex-parte and sale certificate was issued in favour of Harbhajan Kaur. Thereafter the Court issued the warrants of possession. It was only after the warrants of possession were issued, Boota Singh filed the application on 14.08.2004, as such it cannot be said in any manner that Boota Singh or his legal representatives had no knowledge of the decree passed against Boota Singh. Resultantly, this petition is dismissed in limine. (A.N.Jindal) Judge 15.02.2011 mamta-II