Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 1691 (PNJ)

Kulwant Kaur v. Shisha Singh

2009-09-24

SHAM SUNDER

body2009
Judgment Sham Sunder, J. 1. This revision-petition is directed against the order dated 20.04.2009, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division) Sangrur, vide which it accepted the application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure, for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 14.09.2005 and ex parte proceedings order dated 10.06.2005. 2. Kulwant Kaur, filed a suit for maintenance under the Hindu Adoption and Maintenance Act against Shisha Singh respondent, her husband. The evidence was led in that suit by the plaintiff as well as the defendant. When the case was fixed for rebuttal evidence the Counsel for the defendant/respondent pleaded no instructions and the defendant/respondent was proceeded against ex parte. Ultimately, an ex parte decree dated 14.09.2005 granting maintenance at the rate of Rs. 1200/- per month from 24.09.1998 to 23.09.1999 was passed by the Court of Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Sangrur. It was also directed that the charge on the property of Shisha Singh in respect of the maintenance, granted in favour of Kulwant Kaur was created. 3. An application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 14.09.2005 and ex parte proceedings order dated 10.06.2005, was filed by Shisha Singh applicant/defendant, that since he was unfit to move due to paralytic attack and even could not speak properly he could not attend the Court on 2-3 dates before passing the ex parte decree. It was stated that his Counsel never informed him that he had pleaded no instructions on his behalf. It was further stated that no notice was ever received by the defendant from the Court after pleading no instructions by his Counsel to appear on his behalf. It was further stated that when the son of the applicant/defendant visited Sangrur and tried to contact his Counsel but his junior Counsel was available, who told that the case had been decided against him as S. Bharpur Singh, Advocate had pleaded no instructions on his behalf, in the Court. It was further stated that there was sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree as also the ex parte proceedings order referred to above. 4. In reply to the application, the plaintiff/respondent pleaded that the application was not maintainable as after the parties closed their evidence, it was for the Court to go through the file and pronounce the judgment. 4. In reply to the application, the plaintiff/respondent pleaded that the application was not maintainable as after the parties closed their evidence, it was for the Court to go through the file and pronounce the judgment. It was stated that the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2005, therefore, could be treated to have been pronounced on merits and not ex parte. It was further stated that once the Counsel for the defendant pleaded no instructions on his behalf there was no necessity to issue notice to him as there is no legal provision in that regard. It was further stated that the theory of defendant was concocted. 5. From the pleadings of the parties, the following issues were framed by the trial Court -- "1. Whether there are sufficient grounds to set aside the judgment and decree dated 14.09.2005-OPA 2. Whether application is not maintainable - OPR 3. Whether applicant has no right to file the present application - OPR 4. Relief." 6. After hearing the Counsel for the parties and on going through the evidence on record the trial Court set aside the ex parte judgment and decree dated 14.09.2005 and the ex parte proceedings order dated 10.06.2005. 7. Feeling aggrieved, the instant revision petition has been filed by the revision petitioner. 8. I have heard the Counsel for the parties and have gone through and perused the record of the case carefully. 9. The Counsel for the revision-petitioner submitted that the application for setting aside the ex-parte judgment and decree was not maintainable as once the parties closed their evidence, it was for the Court to go through the file and pronounce the judgment. He further submitted that even otherwise there was no sufficient cause for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 14.09.2005 as also the ex parte proceedings order dated 10.06.2005. He further submitted that the respondent/defendant was neither ill nor suffered any attack of paralysis. He further submitted that once the Counsel for the defendant/respondent, pleaded no instructions on his behalf under no provision of law, the Court was under obligation to issue a fresh notice to him (defendant). He further submitted that the order impugned being illegal was liable to be set aside. 10. The Counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the order passed by the trial Court, is perfectly legal and deserves to be upheld. 11. He further submitted that the order impugned being illegal was liable to be set aside. 10. The Counsel for the respondent, however, submitted that the order passed by the trial Court, is perfectly legal and deserves to be upheld. 11. After giving my thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions raised by the Counsel for the parties in my considered opinion, the revision petition is liable to be accepted for the reasons to be recorded hereinafter. Normally the Courts in such like cases are inclined to allow the application for setting aside the ex parte decree yet this principle is not of universal application. Every case is required to be decided on its own facts and circumstances. First, coming to the question as to whether the Court was under obligation to issue a notice to the defendant/respondent, when his Counsel pleaded no instructions on his behalf and he was proceeded against ex parte on 10.06.2005; it may be stated here; that there was no obligation on the Court to do so. In Suresh Kumar v. Smt Daryai, 1996(4) S.C.T. 127 - 1996(3) PLR 379, a case decided by a Division Bench of this Court a similar question arose for decision. The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case was to the effect that when an advocate withdraws from the proceedings by pleading no instructions on behalf of a party, it was not always necessary for the Court to issue notice to such a party before proceeding ex-parte. If the party does not approach his advocate and does not settle terms with him the Counsel is justified to withdraw from the proceedings. It is the duty of the party to attend the proceedings along-with the advocate. Merely by engaging Counsel the party is not absolved of its responsibility. If the Counsel withdraws for want of instructions from his client, the Court is under no obligation to serve him with another notice at public expense. There is no such procedure in the Code of Civil Procedure to issue a fresh notice. The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. There is no such procedure in the Code of Civil Procedure to issue a fresh notice. The principle of law laid down in the aforesaid case is fully applicable to the facts of the present case. Once on 10.06.2005, the Counsel for the defendant/respondent pleaded no instructions on his behalf the Court was under no obligation, in view of the principle of law laid down in Suresh Kumar-s case (supra) to issue a fresh notice to him to appear in the Court in the case. The submission of the Counsel for the revision petitioner in this regard appears to be correct and is accepted. 12. On the other hand, the Counsel for the respondent placed reliance on Malkiat Singh and another v. Joginder Singh and others, 1998(1) R.C.R.(Civil) 277 - AIR 1998 Supreme Court 258, Sanihi Ram v. Ajit Singh, 2006(4) RCR (Civil) 247 and Balwinder Singh v. Tarsem Lal, 2000(4) RCR (Civil) 208, in support of his contention, that the Court was under obligation to issue a fresh notice to the defendant/respondent, when his Counsel pleaded no instructions on his behalf on 10.06.2005. The perusal of the aforesaid cases, the first of which was decided by the Apex Court and the latter were decided by the Single Benches of this Court clearly goes to show that no invariable principle of law was laid down therein that in every case when the Counsel pleads no instructions on behalf of his client the Court is under obligation to issue a fresh notice to him to appear in the Court in a case. The aforesaid cases were decided on the peculiar facts and circumstances prevailing therein/Only the ratio of law laid down in a decision of the Apex Court, is required to be applied to the facts of a particular case. If a case is decided by the Apex Court or this Court, on the peculiar facts and circumstances prevailing therein, then it cannot be said that it amounted to laying down the specific principle of law of universal application. Under these circumstances, no help can be drawn by the Counsel for the respondent from the aforesaid cases. The submission of the Counsel for the respondent, therefore, being devoid of merit must fail and the same stands rejected. 13. Under these circumstances, no help can be drawn by the Counsel for the respondent from the aforesaid cases. The submission of the Counsel for the respondent, therefore, being devoid of merit must fail and the same stands rejected. 13. Now, coming to the factum as to whether there was sufficient cause, for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 14.09.2005 and the ex parte proceedings order dated 10.06.2005, it may be stated here that answer is in the negative. The principle of law, laid down, in Smt. Tara Wanti v. State of Haryana through the Collector Kurukshetra, 1995(1) R.R.R. 110-1994(3) R.R.R. 247- AIR 1995 Punjab and Haryana 32, (Full Bench) was to the effect that sufficient cause must be a cause, which is beyond the control of the party, invoking the aid of the Section and the test to be applied, would be to see as to whether it was a bona fide cause inasmuch as nothing could be considered to be bona-fide which is not done with due care and attention. Precisely the meaning of the word sufficient cause and its scope should not be crystallized by any rigid definition. The cause which was pleaded in the application for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 14.09.2005 and the ex parte proceedings order dated 10.06.2005 by the defendant/respondent was to the effect that he suffered a paralytic attack and therefore could not appear in the Court on 2-3 dates before the passing of the decree. Had the defendant/respondent suffered from paralytic attack which could be said to be a very serious disease, he would have been admitted in some hospital where he was required to be provided the regular treatment. Paralytic-patients do not respond to treatment in the normal course very soon. Regular treatment of a paralytic patient requires considerable time. The defendant/respondent was proceeded against ex parte on 10.06.2005 when his advocate pleaded no instructions. He did not produce any medical record nor examined any Medical Officer to prove that either on 10.06.2005 or earlier to that or between 10.06.2005 to 14.09.2005, he suffered paralytic attack resulting into his admission in the hospital and therefore he was disabled to appear in the Court. His bald statement that he suffered paralytic attack during the period aforesaid and as such he was unable to move about could not be taken as a gospel truth. His bald statement that he suffered paralytic attack during the period aforesaid and as such he was unable to move about could not be taken as a gospel truth. Had he been suffering from a minor disease it would have been said that his admission was not necessary nor it was required of him to follow the regular treatment. On the other hand, the evidence which was produced by the defendant/respondent regarding his illness by way of examining Dr. Amrish Mittal AW-1 and producing A-l and A-2 clearly showed that he was admitted in Baba Aapo Aap Hospital near G.G.S. Public School Mangwal Sangrur (Pb.) on 25.09.2005 at 8.15 PM and was discharged therefrom on 28.09.2005. The disease which was mentioned therein was to the effect that he showed his inability to bear weight on legs and complained of swelling of knees. No neurological deficiency was found. The evidence of Dr. Amrish Mittal AW-1 and the documents A-1 and A-2 clearly go to show that the petitioner was not got admitted and treated on 10.06.2005 or before that when he was proceeded against ex parte or between 10.06.2005 to 14.09.2005 when the ex-parte decree was passed. The case set up by the defendant/respondent, that he suffered Paralytic attack before 10.06.2005 or on 10.06.2005 or any time between 10.06.2005 to 14.09.2005, therefore, could not be said to be correct and was belied from the medical evidence aforesaid, as also the medical treatment, referred to above. The ex-parte proceedings order dated 10.06.2005 and the ex parte judgment and decree dated 14.09.2005 were not required to be set aside at the mere asking of the defendant/respondent, that he suffered the paralytic attack. 14. Even otherwise the perusal of the file shows that Kulwant Kaur wife of Shisha Singh defendant filed the suit for maintenance as far back as on 24.02.1995. The suit remained pending for quite a long time. Ultimately it was decreed vide judgment and decree dated 14.09.2005 i.e. after 10 years. It is also proved that Kulwant Kaur revision petitioner is aged about 70 years and has no source of income. Even after 10.06.2005 when the defendant respondent was proceeded against ex parte as many as six opportunities for rebuttal evidence had been granted but he did not appear in the Court and moved an application only after the ex parte decree was passed. Even after 10.06.2005 when the defendant respondent was proceeded against ex parte as many as six opportunities for rebuttal evidence had been granted but he did not appear in the Court and moved an application only after the ex parte decree was passed. It means that the only motive of the defendant/respondent was to delay the proceedings one way or the other. Thus right from 1995 till date the respondent has failed to pay even a single penny as maintenance to Kulwant Kaur. His sole motive was to delay the proceedings on one account or the other. While setting aside the order dated 20.04.2009 the respondent is liable to be burdened with heavy costs for delaying the proceedings non-payment of a single penny as maintenance to his wife Kulwant Kaur till date driving her to penury and wasting the time of the Court. The order impugned thus suffers from illegality and perversity warranting interference of this Court in its revisional jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India. The order impugned is therefore liable to be set aside. 15. For the reasons recorded above, the petition is accepted. The order dated 20.04.2009, rendered by the Court of Additional Civil Judge, (Senior Division), Sangrur,. is set aside. An amount of Rs. 10,000/- is imposed as costs upon the respondent, for delay in making payment of the maintenance allowance to Kulwant Kaur. 16. The parties are directed to appear in the trial Court on 20.10.2009 for further proceedings.