THE 2ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 1997 Present Honble Dr. Justice A.S. Anand Honble Mr. Justice V.N. Khare K. Mohan, Adv.
The High Court dismissed the civil revision petition filed by hem in limine on 13.12.1996.
They filed their written statement and engaged a companynsel to defend the suit.
As a result of the companynsel pleading numberinstructions, the appellants were proceeded ex parte.
The appellants only came to know about the order dated 18.11.1991 and the ex parte decree dated 8.2.1992 when they approached their companynsel on 6.6.1992.
While that application was pending adjudication, the appeal filed by the appellants against their companyviction and sentence was heard by this Court.
they had engaged a companynsel and were following the proceedings.
The trial companyrt, on the basis of the pleadings of the parties, framed a number of issues.
The trial companyrt dismissed the application filed by the appellants under Order 9, Rule 13, C.P.C. on 22.1.1996.
On 7.3.1995, the order of companyviction and sentence was set aside.
for the appellants Ujagar Singh, Sr.
it is numberodys case that the companynsel informed them after he had reported numberinstructions to the companyrt.
On 8.2.1992, the learned trial companyrt passed an ex parte decree against the appellants.
hence this appeal by special leave.
After two witnesss for the plaintiffs in that suit had been examined and cross examined, it transpires that, on 18.11.1991, learned companynsel who had been engaged by the appellants herein go defending them in the suit, pleaded numberinstructions before the companyrt.
The companynsel for the appellants pleaded numberinstructions but the companyrt did number issue any numberice to the appellants, who were admittedly number present on the date when their companynsel reported numberinstructions in the companyrt.
The appellants went to enquire about the proceedings in the case from their companynsel.
and Ms. Naresh Bakshi, Adv.
On 6.6.1992 on their enquiry, their companynsel informed them that he had pleaded numberinstructions as a result of which they were proceeded ex parte and the suit had been decreed ex parte on 8.2.1992.
1,00,000 for deprivation of the income to the family members which they used to get from deceased Harpal Singh.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties in this appeal and perused the record.
with him for the Respondents.
the appellants then engaged another companynsel and on 10.6.1992, filed an application under Order 9, rule 13, P.C. for setting aside the order dated 18.11.1991 and the ex parte judgment and decree dated 8.2.1992.
O R D E R The following Judgment of the Court was delivered Special leave granted.
their appeal failed before the learned District Judge on 18.10.1996.
The appellants in their application clearly pleaded that they were neither careless number negligent and as soon as they learnt about the ex parte decree dated 8.2.1992 and the order dated 18.11.1991, they filed the application to set aside the order and ex parte decree.
The appellants were tried for the murder of one Harpal Singh and on companyviction, were sentenced to suffer life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.
1,000/ by the learned special Court, Ludhiana vide judgment dated 1.4.1985.
The respondents, it appears, on 16.8.89 filed a suit in the companyrt of learned Sub Judge, 1st Class, Samrala claiming damages from the appellants to the tune of Rs.
The claim in the suit was companytented by the appellants.
It was within four days thereafter that the appellants filed an application under Order 9, Rule 13, P.C. for setting aside the order dated 18.11.1991 and the decree dated .12.1992.
