IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** 295 CR-2438-2024 Date of Decision.:13.05.2025 Tarsem Chand …..Pe--oner Vs. Gurmel Singh .….Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK GUPTA Present:- Ms. Ramandeep Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate for the peoner. **** DEEPAK GUPTA, J. (ORAL) This revision is directed against order dated 24.01.2024 (Annexure P-8) passed by learned Addional District Judge, Paala, dismissing the appeal against order dated 01.02.2019 (Annexure P-6) passed by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura, whereby an applicaon under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was dismissed. 2. As is borne out from the paper-book, suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 06.01.2003 for decree for mandatory and permanent injuncon was filed by Gurmel Singh (respondent herein) against defendant Tarsem Chand (peoner herein). Defendant contested the suit by filing wri:en statement. Necessary issues were framed. However, during proceedings, defendant was proceeded ex parte and ulmately, the suit was decreed ex parte on 30.10.2013, copy of which is Annexure P-3. 3. The defendant i.e. peoner herein moved an applicaon under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for se=ng aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 30.10.2013, which was opposed by the respondent- plainff. NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.14 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2438-2024 -2- Necessary issues were framed and a?er taking evidence, the applicaon was dismissed by way of order dated 01.02.2019 by learned Civil Judge (Junior Division), Rajpura, copy of which is Annexure P-6 and the said order was affirmed by the Appellate Court by way of the order dated 24.01.2024 (Annexure P-8), which has now been assailed before this Court. 4. It is contended by learned counsel that he came to know about the ex parte judgment and decree against him in the first week of June, 2014, when one Mukand Singh submi:ed an applicaon to the police against him to the effect that the pendency of the suit had not been disclosed to him at the me of purchasing the land. A?er conclusion of the proceedings of enquiry, defendant checked up the police record, obtained cerfied copy of the judgment and decree and then moved the applicaon a?er gaining knowledge about the date of the decree. Learned counsel contends further that in fact, fraud has been commi:ed with the defendant- peoner by Gurmel Singh- respondent in connivance with Mukand Singh because during pendency of the suit, said Mukand Singh had approached the peoner as a prospecve buyer and had undertaken to take care of the ligaon. However, later on said Mukand Singh did not take care of the ligaon, as he connived with the plainff, who was his nephew. 5. A?er hearing learned counsel for the peoner at considerable length and going through the orders passed by the Courts below, this Court does not find any merit in the revision. As the orders would reveal, defendant was contesng the suit and had even filed the wri:en statement. Defendant did not appear before the Court on 16.05.2013, due to which he was proceeded ex parte and ulmately, the suit was decreed ex parte on 30.10.2013. Simply because defendant had sold or had agreed to sell the property in dispute to some Mukand Singh, who had asked the peoner- defendant to take care of the ligaon, cannot be a sufficient NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.14 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CR-2438-2024 -3- jusficaon for the defendant for not a:ending the Court proceedings. 6. Not only this, the defendant was duly served in the suit and he had even filed the wri:en statement and so, he cannot be allowed to plead that he was not aware of the ex parte judgment and decree dated 30.10.2013 prior to the first week of June, 2014. The limitaon for moving the applicaon for se=ng aside the ex parte judgment & decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is to commence from the date of the ex parte judgment and decree in these facts & circumstances, and not from the date of the alleged knowledge, inasmuch as defendant- peoner had been duly served. As such, the applicaon filed on 25.07.2014 for se=ng aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 30.10.2013 has been rightly held by the Courts below to be barred by limitaon. 7. This Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned orders as passed by the Courts below and as such, holding the present revision to be devoid of any merit, same is hereby dismissed. (DEEPAK GUPTA) JUDGE May 13, 2025 Neeka Tuteja Whether Speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No NEETIKA TUTEJA 2025.05.14 16:50 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document