Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3. Brief facts of the present case inter-alia are that respon- dent - Gram Panchayat moved an application for ejectment of the petitioners herein, under Section 7 of the Punjab Village Common Lands Act (for brevity 'the Act') before the learned Assistant Collec- tor, Ist Grade, Panipat. Learned Assistant Collector vide order dated 19.12.1980 directed ejectment of the petitioners herein. Feeling ag- grieved from the ejectment order dated 19.12.1980, an appeal was preferred by the petitioners herein before the learned Collector, Kar- nal and the same was dismissed by the learned Collector vide judg- ment dated 18.5.1981. Petitioners filed Civil Suit No.641 of 1983 in the Court of Sub-Judge, Ist Class, Panipat challenging the ejectment order dated 19.12.1980 passed by learned Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Panipat as well as learned Collector's order passed in appeal on 18.5.1981. Defendant - respondent herein remained absent de- spite of service, hence, learned Civil Judge vide order dated 15.12.1983 directed ex-parte proceedings against the respondent/de- fendant. However, vide order dated 9.3.1984, plaint was directed to be returned for presentation in the proper Court. Order dated 9.3.1984 was challenged by the present petitioners/plaintiffs before the Appellate Court and Appellate Court vide judgment dated 3.9.1984 allowed the appeal and set aside the order dated 9.3.1984 and remanded the matter to learned Civil Judge to decide it on merit in accordance with law. Ultimately, an ex-parte decree was passed by the learned Civil Judge on 25.11.1985 declaring the judgment dated 19.12.1980 as well as judgment dated 18.5.1981 non est and set aside the ejectment order as well as Appellate Order thereon. Petitioners/plaintiffs produced judgment of the learned Civil Court dated 25.11.1985 before the learned Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Panipat where execution was pending for the ejectment of the peti- tioners/plaintiffs. Learned Executing Court/Assistant Collector, Ist Grade, Panipat vide order dated 23.8.1990 dismissed the execution by observing that ejectment order passed on 19.12.1980 and Appel- late order dated 18.5.1981 had already been set aside by the learned Civil Judge vide judgement and decree dated 25.11.1985. Thereaf- ter, nothing was done for long 13 years. However, on one fine morn- ing i.e. on 17.3.2003, defendant-respondent herein moved an appli- cation under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. for setting aside the ex-parte decree dated 12.11.1985. Learned Civil Judge vide judgment dated 30.11.2007 dismissed the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. having observed that the said application is hopelessly time barred and defendant - Gram Panchayat has acquired the knowledge of the Civil Court's decree in the execution proceedings where ex-parte judgment and decree was produced. Feeling aggrieved from the re- jection of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. vide judgment dated 30.11.2007, respondent - Gram Panchayat preferred an ap- peal. Appellate Court vide impugned order dated 9.4.2009 has ob- served that application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is hopelessly time barred, however, set aside the ex-parte decree saying it was ob- tained by collusion and fraud.

4. Mr. Harkesh Manuja, learned Counsel for the petitioners vehemently argued that in the proceedings under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. once Court finds that application under Order 9 Rule 13 C.P.C. is hopelessly time barred, then Court below has absolutely no jurisdiction to set aside the ex-parte judgment saying it is the out- come of fraud. It is further argued that learned Appellate Court has no other option except to dismiss the appeal.

5. Undisputedly, judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge, Panipat dated 25.11.1985 was produced by the petitioners/plaintiffs before the Executing Court hearing the execution for the ejectment of the petitioners on 23.8.1990. Undisputedly, exe- cution was dismissed by the Executing Court on 23.8.1990 in view of the decree being passed by the Civil Court setting aside the eject- ment order passed against the petitioners under Section 7 of the Act.