C.R. No. 5830 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 20927-CII of 2008 and CR No. 5830 of 2008 Date of Decision: 6.11.2009 Dr. S.P. Dhawan ....Petitioner. Versus Kay Gee Financiers ...Respondent. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. MJS Sethi, Senior Advocate with Mr. Amit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Vishal Garg, Advocate for the respondent. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. C.M. No. 20927-CII of 2008 Allowed as prayed for. C.R. No. 5830 of 2008 In this revision petition under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has impugned the order dated 13.9.2008 passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Chandigarh whereby the application filed by him for consolidating the two applications dated 25.11.2004 and 19.2.2005 filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short “the Code”) was dismissed. Briefly few facts necessary for adjudication of this revision petition may be noticed here:- C.R. No. 5830 of 2008 -2- The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell House No. 1858, Sector 22B, Chandigarh against Ram Ji Dass, father of the petitioner, on 6.5.1994. Said Ram Ji Dass died on 19.6.1996. However, before his death, he had filed the written statement. No legal heir of said Ramji Dass was brought on record for a period of more than two years. On an application having been filed by the plaintiff-respondent in 1998, the legal representatives, i.e. his widow Lajwanti, his four sons and daughter were brought on record. Smt. Lajwanti also expired on 26.5.2000. An ex-parte decree was passed on 5.2.2002 and the decree-holder filed execution of the ex parte decree in 2004. On 20.11.2004, the executing court ordered for getting the sale deed executed through the agency of the court. The petitioner on coming to know about the same, filed an application on 25.11.2004 for quashing the order dated 20.11.2004. Thereafter, on 19.2.2005, the petitioner filed another application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside the ex parte decree and judgment dated 5.2.2002. An application under Section 151 of the Code was filed by the petitioner thereafter for consolidation of both the applications, which was dismissed by the impugned order. Hence this revision petition. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the file with their assistance. The trial court vide order, impugned herein, held that the application filed on 19.2.2005 under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside the judgment and decree dated C.R. No. 5830 of 2008 -3- 5.2.2002 would be decided first and thereafter the application filed on 25.11.2004, because the execution petition was outcome of the judgment and decree dated 5.2.2002. The learned counsel for the petitioner could not show as to how any prejudice has been caused to the petitioner by the impugned order. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the present revision petition is disposed of with a direction to the trial court that the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code for setting aside ex parte decree dated 5.2.2002 be decided before proceeding further with the execution petition. Since, the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code was filed more than four and half years ago, the trial court is directed to the decide the same in accordance with law expeditiously but not later than 31.1.2010. November 6, 2009 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE