Kewal Ram vs Santokh Singh

Paramjit Singh Patwalia, J.—Instant revision petition has been filed under Article 227 of the Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 24.10.2013 (Annexure P/5) passed by learned Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), Garhshankar, whereby application filed by respondent-defendant for setting aside ex-parte order dated 07.08.2012, has been allowed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record.

Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently contends that the respondent-defendant cannot be allowed to file written statement. It will set clock back and unnecessarily delay the suit. Learned counsel further submits that order passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to the compromise and statements given in Court, which are placed on record as Annexure P/1 and P/2 respectively.

Perusal of the record shows that respondent-defendant filed an application for setting aside the exports order dated 07.08.2012 on the allegation that petitioner-plaintiff has took the signatures of the respondent-defendant on blank papers and has got executed the alleged compromise under force and coercion. It is the case of the respondent-defendant that he had never executed the compromise and want to file written statement in order to contest his case. The respondent-defendant also alleged that due to undue influence and pressure from the petitioner-plaintiff, defendant was forced to suffer compromise statement in the Court. In view of this, non-appearance on the date fixed was neither intentional nor willful but due to misleading and the concealment of material facts by the petitioner-plaintiff.

The trial Court after considering the record, recorded a finding that the case is at its initial stage. It is settled law that no party should be condemned unheard and, therefore, the respondent-defendant has been allowed to appear and contest the suit by filing the written statement.

So far as the statements and the compromise are concerned, they cannot be appreciated at this stage. Once there is specific allegation regarding fraud, misrepresentation, coercion as well as pressure and getting the signatures on blank paper then the Court has rightly allowed the application of the defendants and allowed them to appear and contest the suit by filing the written statement.

Learned counsel for the petitioner further submits that once the compromise was effected between the parties and statements were recorded, then the Court was required to pass an order under Order 23 Rule 3 CPC. The Court has not proceeded in that direction. Otherwise also, since there was no written statement, the Court should have decreed the suit as no issues were involved. The contention raised by learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived. It is for the Court to see that in the facts and circumstances of the case, what order can be passed. Since the suit was for specific performance, the evidence is required to be led by plaintiff to categorically prove his case. In the present case, even the agreement was not properly proved nor it was exhibited on record, therefore, Court was not required to pass order decreeing the suit. Now since the ex-parte order has been set aside, the suit will be decided by the Court on merit keeping in view the evidence available before the Court. In view of above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the impugned order.

Dismissed.