9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (6) TMI 992X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner-plaintiff had filed a suit for recovery on 22.07.2016 against the respondent-defendant. Said suit was decreed ex-parte vide judgment and decree dated 09.12.2016. Application under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 CPC was moved by the respondent while pleading that the respondent was served summons in the said matter, issued for 19.10.2016 on 06.09.2016. In a complaint under Section 138 of the Negotiable Instruments Act filed by the petitioner's daughter Amardeep Kaur, notice was served upon him on 17.09.2016 for 01.10.2016. It is stated therein that in order to resolve the controversy between Amardeep Kaur (petitioner's daughter) and the respondent, a Panchayat was convened in the month of September, 2016, wherein Amarde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 16 much earlier to the writing dated 12.01.2017 in a dishonest manner and tried to overreach the Court. It is thus stated that the respondent's absence was neither intentional nor willful but due to the reason as above and he came to know of the decree on 13.05.2019 when he obtained copy of the Jamabandi of his land. Said application was contested by the present petitioner while pleading that application after a lapse of two & a half ( 2½) years of passing judgment and decree dated 09.12.2016 was not maintainable. The respondent, it is stated was duly served but he intentionally did not appear and he only wished to prolong the proceedings. It is only when notice of the application under Order 21 Rule 66 CPC was served, that respo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rds the present petitioner. It has been wrongly observed by the learned Addl. Civil Judge, (Sr. Division), Fazilka in the impugned order dated 29.02.2020 that the matter was compromised by the respondent with the petitioner and that he was under the impression that suit would be withdrawn by her, therefore, he did not appear and was thus proceeded ex- parte. Acceptance of such a plea, it is submitted, has seriously prejudiced the petitioner in the civil suit, which has been restored. It is thus prayed that this petition be allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and have gone through the file with his assistance. It is a matter of record that the petitioner had filed the suit for recovery of Rs. 2,03,600/- against the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 016. Rs. 1 lakh is stated to have been paid by the respondent to petitioner's daughter on 15.10.2016. Amardeep Kaur, after receiving the final installment on 12.01.2017 has recorded her statement before the learned JMIC, Fazilka regarding settlement with the respondent and the complaint filed by her was withdrawn on 21.01.2017. Respondent had duly proved another pronote and receipt dated 06.06.2014 in favour of Amardeep Kaur, the original of which was produced before the said Court. The said pronote and receipt was stated to have been returned to the respondent at the time of compromise by Amardeep Kaur. In my considered opinion, learned Additional Civil Judge (Sr. Division), Fazilka has correctly allowed the application under Order 9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
