High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCR/2143/2015dismissed

Balvir Kaur v. Jagraj Singh

2015-03-262 pages

Civil Revision No. 2143 of 2015 -1- In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Civil Revision No. 2143 of 2015 Date of Decision: 26.3.2015.

Balvir Kaur ......Petitioner

Versus

Jagraj Singh .......Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

Present:

Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** SABINA, J.

Petitioner has filed this petition challenging the order dated 21.2.2015 (Annexure P-15).

I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the record available on the file carefully. Impugned order dated 21.2.2015 (Annexure P-15) reads as under:- "Arguments on application for staying the execution proceedings have been heard. Ld. counsel for JD has moved the present application on the ground that he has moved the application for restoration of the application U/o 9 Rule 13 CPC. However, on the other hand Ld. Counsel for DH has submitted that the said application has been dismissed by the court vide order dated 21.2.2015. Keeping in view of submissions made by Ld.counsel for DH, present application for staying the GURPREET SINGH 2015.04.06 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Civil Revision No. 2143 of 2015 -2execution proceedings become infractous and disposed of accordingly.

Perusal of the file reveals that the Sub Registrar not registered the sale deed despite of order of the court. Sub Registrar is directed to get the sale deed registered for 2.3.2015, for which date show cause notice to Sub Registrar for not registering the sale deed despite of order of the court, be also issued."

Respondent had filed suit for specific performance of agreement to sell dated 15.3.2008. Petitioner failed to appear despite service and was proceeded ex parte vide order dated 17.7.2009. Suit filed by the respondent was decreed in ex parte vide judgment/decree dated 6.3.2010 (Annexure P-1). Petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 ('CPC' for short) for setting aside the ex parte judgment/decree dated 6.3.2010 passed against her. The said application was dismissed in default vide order dated 20.11.2013 (Annexure P-4).

Thereafter, petitioner moved an application for restoration of the application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC. The said application was dismissed vide order dated 21.2.2015. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be upheld.

Hence, no ground for interference by this Court is made out.

Dismissed.

(SABINA) JUDGE March 26, 2015 Gurpreet GURPREET SINGH 2015.04.06 11:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh