CR-7485-2025 (O&M) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CR-7485-2025 (O&M) Date of decision: 20.01.2026 Kanta Devi, now deceased through her LRs & Ors. ...Pe))oners Versus Rajinder Lal (since deceased) through LRs. & Ors. ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present: Mr. Manmeet Singh Rana, Advocate for the pe))oners. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) The present revision pe))on arises out of an order dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by the learned Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar, whereby an applica)on ﬁled under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure for se<ng aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 19.02.2013 (Annexure P-4), along with an applica)on under Sec)on 5 of the Limita)on Act seeking condona)on of delay of more than seven years, was dismissed. 2. The suit in ques)on was one for possession by way of par))on and was ins)tuted by Rajinder Lal (respondent No.1 herein, now deceased and represented through his legal representaves) against twelve defendants. The suit was contested only by defendants No.1 to 3. Defendants No.4 to 12, including defendant No.4 Smt. Kanta Devi, defendant No.5 Sunil and defendant No.6 Sanjeev, were proceeded against ex parte. The suit ul)mately culminated in an ex parte judgment and decree dated 19.02.2013 passed by the learned Addi)onal Civil Judge (Senior Division), Jalandhar. 3. It is not in dispute that subsequent to the passing of the decree, only defendant No.4 Smt. Kanta Devi, through her legal YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.21 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7485-2025 (O&M) representa)ves, approached the trial Court by way of an applica)on under Order IX Rule 13 of CPC seeking se<ng aside of the ex parte judgment and decree insofar as it related to her, accompanied by an applica)on under Sec)on 5 of the Limita)on Act for condona)on of delay of more than seven years. No such applica)on was ever ﬁled by defendants No.5 and 6, namely Sunil and Sanjeev, in their individual capacity, though they too had been proceeded against ex parte in the suit. 4. The learned trial Court, upon considering the ma@er, dismissed the applica)on vide the impugned order dated 11.09.2025 (Annexure P-1), primarily on the ground of unexplained and inordinate delay and lack of suﬃcient cause. 5. The present revision pe))on has been ﬁled by Sunil and Sanjeev not only as legal representa)ves of defendant No.4 Smt. Kanta Devi but also in their individual capacity, asser)ng that they too were defendants in the original suit and that the ex parte decree ought to be set aside. 6. A perusal of the impugned order as well as the record leaves no manner of doubt that the applica)on under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was conﬁned exclusively to defendant No.4 Smt. Kanta Devi. The right to seek se<ng aside of an ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is a personal and independent procedural right, which must be exercised by the party against whom the decree has been passed. Defendants No.5 and 6, having been proceeded ex parte in their own right, were required to independently invoke the remedy available to them under Order IX Rule 13 CPC within the prescribed period of limita)on or by showing suﬃcient cause for delay. Having failed to do so, they cannot indirectly assail the ex parte decree by tagging themselves as legal representa)ves of another YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.21 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-7485-2025 (O&M) defendant. 7. It is well se@led that the legal representa)ves of a deceased party step into the shoes of that party only to the extent of rights and liabili)es which survived to the deceased. The legal representa)ves cannot, by virtue of such status, revive or assert independent rights which were available to them in their own capacity but were never exercised. In other words, Sunil and Sanjeev, in their individual capacity as defendants No.5 and 6, cannot derive a cause of ac)on under Order IX Rule 13 CPC from an applica)on ﬁled on behalf of defendant No.4 alone. 8. Moreover, the impugned applica)on itself was ﬁled aCer an unexplained delay of more than seven years. The law is se@led that an applica)on under Order IX Rule 13 CPC must be ﬁled within limita)on, and in cases of gross delay, the applicant must disclose cogent, convincing and bona ﬁde reasons explaining each day’s delay. In the present case, no such explana)on was forthcoming even qua defendant No.4, much less for defendants No.5 and 6, who had not even invoked the remedy available to them. 9. In these circumstances, the learned trial Court was jus)ﬁed in dismissing the applica)on. The present revision pe))on, in so far as it has been ﬁled by Sunil and Sanjeev merely on the premise that they are also legal representa)ves of defendant No.4, is clearly not maintainable. No jurisdic)onal error, illegality or perversity in the impugned order has been pointed out warran)ng any interference in revisional jurisdic)on. 10. Accordingly, the revision pe))on is dismissed. 20.01.2026 (DEEPAK GUPTA) Yogesh JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No YOGESH MEHTA 2026.01.21 17:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

KANTA DEVI NOW DECEASED THROUGH HER LRS AND OTHERS v. RAJINDER LAL SINCE DECEASED THROUGH LRS AND OTHERS

Judgment text