Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sukhwinder Singh vs Jagroop Singh & Another on 12 September, 2012
Author: L. N. Mittal
Bench: L. N. Mittal
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CR NO.5332 OF 2012 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION : 12th SEPTEMBER, 2012
Sukhwinder Singh
.... Petitioner
Versus
Jagroop Singh & another
.... Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE L. N. MITTAL
****
Present : Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner.
****
L. N. MITTAL, J. (ORAL)
CM No.22879-CII of 2012 Allowed as prayed for.
Main Case This revision petition under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure (in short, CPC) read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by Sukhwinder Singh-defendant No.2.
Suit filed by respondent No.1-plaintiff against respondent No.2/defendant No.1 and against petitioner/defendant No.2. The said suit was decreed vide ex parte judgment and decree dated 14.06.2007.
Defendant No.2 moved application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree. However, the petitioner failed to lead any evidence in support of his said application. Consequently, evidence of the petitioner-defendant No.2 was closed by Court order and there being no evidence, application filed by petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC has been dismissed by the trial Court vide judgment dated 19.10.2010. CR NO.5332 OF 2012 (O&M) -2- Petitioner filed first appeal against judgment dated 19.10.2010 of the trial Court. However, the appeal was barred by limitation. Petitioner moved application for condonation of delay in filing the appeal. Learned lower appellate Court vide impugned order dated 07.08.2012 dismissed the said application. Feeling aggrieved, petitioner-defendant No.2 has filed this revision petition.
I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the case file.
Learned counsel for the petitioner very vehemently and emphatically contended that petitioner should not be allowed to suffer for the fault of his counsel in the trial Court. It was contended that the trial Court counsel did not inform the petitioner about the proceedings of application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC and, therefore, the petitioner could not lead any evidence in the trial Court in support of his application and also could not file first appeal within limitation.
I have carefully considered the aforesaid contention but the same cannot be accepted. There has been consistent and persistent default on the part of the petitioner and, therefore, he does not deserve any indulgence by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 CPC read with Article 227 of the Constitution of India. Rightly or wrongly, petitioner was proceeded against ex parte in the suit which was accordingly decreed vide ex parte judgment and decree dated 14.06.2007. The petitioner filed application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the said ex parte judgment and decree. Sufficient effective opportunities were granted to the petitioner for his evidence but he did not lead any evidence and consequently the said application was dismissed. Even appeal against the order of dismissal was not CR NO.5332 OF 2012 (O&M) -3- preferred within limitation and the lower appellate Court after recording evidence has found that there was no sufficient ground to condone the delay in filing the appeal.
If mere ipse dixit by a litigant that his counsel did not inform him of the proceedings, is accepted as panacea for all ills and defaults of the litigant, then probably no case would attain finality and the entire system of administration of justice would be choked and blocked and frustrated by unscrupulous litigants. Mere bald assertion can be made against the Advocate by any unscrupulous litigant to serve his own purpose. Such a litigant if interested in delaying the proceedings would intentionally commit default and lay the blame at the door of the counsel to seek relief for himself.
In the instant case, the suit was decreed ex parte. After having knowledge thereof and having moved application for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree, the petitioner did not care to lead evidence in support of his application. It was duty of the petitioner to have remained in touch with the counsel and not vice-versa. The petitioner failed to lead any evidence in support of his application and also in filing appeal within limitation. It is not even pleaded by the petitioner that he has initiated any action against the Advocate concerned for his alleged default and negligence. Consequently, the petitioner does not deserve any indulgence or discretion by this Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction, keeping in view his persistent conduct of default.
For the reasons aforesaid, I find no perversity, illegality or jurisdictional error in impugned orders of the Courts below. The revision petition is meritless and is accordingly dismissed in limine.
CR NO.5332 OF 2012 (O&M)
-4-
12th September, 2012 (L. N. MITTAL)
'raj' JUDGE