Jasbir Singh v. Satnam Singh And Others

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 188 of 2019 Date of Decision: 20.05.2022 Jasbir Singh ... Petitioner(s)

Versus

Dr. Satnam Singh (Now Deceased) through his LRs and Others ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anil Kshetarpal.

Present:

Mr. Shivam Malhotra, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Sushant Kareer, Advocate for the respondent No.1 and 2.

Mr. Chetan Mittal, Senior Advocate with Mr. Kunal Mulwani, Mr. Aayush Gupta and Ms. Shifali Goyal, Advocate, for the respondent No.5 and 6.

Anil Kshetarpal, J.

1.

The defendant No.1 assails the correctness of the order passed by the trial Court refusing to set aside the ex parte proceedings while permitting him to join at that stage.

2.

The trial Court has found that the petitioner did not appear despite publication of notice in the newspaper. It was also found that the petitioner came to know of the pendency of the present suit from the written statement filed by the plaintiff (Ex.P26) in another suit on 02.09.2014. 3.

Heard the learned counsel representing the parties, at length and with their able assistance, perused the paper-book. DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2022.05.27 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 4.

The learned counsel representing the petitioner contends that

Civil Revision No. 188 of 2019 the petitioner should be permitted to file the written statement and the suit should be heard de novo. He submits that unless he is permitted to file the written statement, his defence will not come before the Court. On the other hand, the learned senior counsel representing the respondent No.5 and 6 has submitted that when the suit is at the fag end, the petitioner has filed an application for setting aside the ex parte proceedings, despite having knowledge of the pendency of the suit. He relies upon the judgment passed by the Supreme Court in Sunil Poddar and Others v. Union Bank of India (2008)2 SCC 326.

5.

The learned counsel representing the petitioner does not dispute that he had knowledge of the pendency of the suit on 02.09.2014. The petitioner was also served through publication. Furthermore, the suit has already been defended by his brother Sharanbir Singh, who has filed the written statement. The suit is pending for the last nine years. 6.

Keeping in view the aforesaid facts, no ground is made out to interfere. Hence, the present revision petition is dismissed. (Anil Kshetarpal) Judge May 20, 2022 "DK"

Whether speaking/reasoned :Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2022.05.27 11:06 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document