Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 281 (PNJ)

Ram Pati - Plaintiff v. Ruldi Devi - Defendants

2000-03-07

V.K.JHANJI

body2000
JUDGMENT V.K. Jhanji, J. - This second appeal is by defendants No. 2 to 4 against the judgment and decrees of the Courts below decreeing the suit of the plaintiff for declaration that judgment and decree dated 30.3.1995 passed in Civil Suit No. 178 of 1995 and judgment and decree dated 31.7.1995 passed in Civil Suit No. 683 of 1995 are illegal and not binding on the rights of the plaintiff. 2. Both the Courts below, on appreciation of evidence adduced by the parties to the suit, have recorded a firm finding of fact that the plaintiff is a Parda Nashin lady and she was kept ignorant about proceedings which ended in decree suffered by her in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2. Consequently, it has been held that the decree is not binding on her. As a result thereof decree suffered by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 has also been held to be illegal. 3. In this second appeal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of defendants No. 2 to 4 has contended that the decree suffered by the plaintiff in favour of defendants No. 1 and 2 was on her own volition and decree suffered by defendant No. 2 in favour of defendants No. 3 and 4 in regard to suit land thus cannot be said to be illegal. 4. I, however, do not find any merit in this contention of learned counsel for defendants No. 2 to 4. 5. It is not in dispute that Civil Suit No. 178 of 1995 which resulted in decree dated 30.3.1995, was filed on 16.2.1995. Notice of the suit was ordered to be issued to the defendant therein (now plaintiff of this suit) for 6.6.1995. It is further not in dispute that before service of the suit could be effected on her, file was taken up on 17.2.1995 for filing of the written statement. Written statement was allegedly filed on 17.2.1995 and on the basis of admission made in the written statement, judgment and decree was passed on 30.3.1995. The fact that notice of the suit was issued for 6.6.1995 but the file was taken up on 17.2.1995 and the written statement was got filed on that date resulting in passing of judgment and decree dated 30.3.1995, clearly shows that the plaintiff was kept ignorant of the proceedings of the suit. The fact that notice of the suit was issued for 6.6.1995 but the file was taken up on 17.2.1995 and the written statement was got filed on that date resulting in passing of judgment and decree dated 30.3.1995, clearly shows that the plaintiff was kept ignorant of the proceedings of the suit. In these circumstances, in my view, both the Courts below have taken correct view of the matter in decreeing the suit of the plaintiff. Consequently, no case for interference in second appeal is made out. Dismissed. Appeal dismissed.