CR No.7812 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. CR No. 7812 of 2009 (O&M) Date of Decision: 01.09.2010 Reshma ....Petitioner Versus Ramphal ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. Sukhjit Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ramender Chauhan, Advocate for the respondent. ... Alok Singh, J.(Oral) Present petition is filed challenging the order dated 31.3.2008 passed by the Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhiwani as well as the judgement dated 9.10.2009 passed by the District Judge, Bhiwani, whereby both the Courts below have dismissed the application moved by the defendant - petitioner herein under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. Brief facts of the present case are that plaintiff - respondent filed suit for specific performance being Suit No.196/97 in the Court of CR No.7812 of 2009 2 Civil Judge, Junior Division, Bhiwani against Leela Singh, husband of the petitioner. During the pendency of the suit, admittedly, Leela Singh had expired on 14.11.1999. In the absence of the defendant, the Court directed ex-parte proceedings vide order dated 27.5.2000 and ultimately, decreed the suit vide judgement and decree dated 18.9.2002. Present petitioner being wife and L.R. of the deceased – defendant moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC seeking setting aside of the ex-parte judgement and decree dated 18.9.2002, contending therein that the applicant is an illiterate lady and had no knowledge of pendency of the aforesaid suit and her husband Leela Singh died in a motor accident on 14.11.1999. After the death of the husband of the applicant, she did not get any information either from the Court or from the lawyer engaged by her deceased husband about the progress and pendency of the suit. It has further been contended that the petitioner came to know for the first time about the ex-parte judgement and decree on 24.5.2005 when plaintiff came to her house to take possession pursuant to the decree. Both the Courts below vide impugned judgements refused to set aside the ex-parte judgement and decree and rejected the application filed under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC moved by the petitioner. Feeling aggrieved from both the judgements, the petitioner has approached this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that on 14.11.1999 original defendant – husband of the petitioner Leela Singh died in a motor accident. It is further argued that the petitioner being an illiterate lady, was not aware about the pendency of the suit. It is further argued that neither her husband nor anybody else ever informed the petitioner during the life time of her husband about the pendency of the suit. He also stated CR No.7812 of 2009 3 that even after the death of her husband neither she received any notice nor any information from the Court or from the counsel allegedly engaged by her husband Leela Singh about the pendency of the suit. Learned counsel for the plaintiff – respondent stated that although, Leela Singh and expired on 14.11.1999, however, the fact remains that the trial Court directed ex-parte proceedings against the defendant vide order dated 27.5.2000 and ultimately decreed the suit on 18.9.2002 and the counsel engaged by Leela Singh kept on appearing before the trial Court, hence the decree passed by the trial Court is perfectly valid and need not be set aside. Undisputedly, during the pendency of the suit, defendant Leela Singh died on 14.11.1999, while the impugned decree was passed on 18.9.2002 and it is the basic principle of law that any decree passed against a dead person, is a nullity. Both the Courts below have not recorded any finding of fact that the present petitioner i.e. wife of the original defendant Leela Singh was ever informed about the pendency of the suit. Admittedly, no notice or information was ever sent to the wife of the original defendant about the pendency of the case. Not only this, petitioner being an illiterate Pardanashin lady cannot be supposed to have any knowledge about the pendency of the suit without any specific service on her. In my considered view, if ex-parte decree is passed without any valid notice or service, then that decree must be set aside on the application moved by the person suffering the decree. Otherwise also, a lis must be decided as far as possible, on merit. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the ex-parte judgement and decree must be set aside and an opportunity must be given to the petitioner to contest the suit. CR No.7812 of 2009 4 Petition is allowed. Impugned orders dated 31.3.2008 and 9.10.2009 are quashed. Ex-parte decree dated 18.9.2002 is set aside. Suit No.196/97 is restored to its original number. Parties are directed to appear before the trial Court on 20.9.2010. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 01.09.2010 sk.