R.L.ANAND,J - (1.) THIS is a civil revision and has been directed against the order dated 19.12.1998, passed by the Court of Additional District Judge, Moga who dismissed the appeal of the petitioner by affirming the order of the trial Court dated 13.8.1987, who dismissed the application of the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, for setting aside the ex parte decree dated 8.8.1991.
(2.) SOME facts of the case can be noticed in the following manner :- The plaintiff-respondent filed a suit for declaration to the effect that he is the owner of the property to the extent of 2/3 share on the basis of natural succession. The present petitioner was added as a defendant. She was proceeded ex parte and an ex parte decree was passed on 8.8.1991 declaring that the plaintiff-respondent is owner to the extent of 2/3rd share in the property in dispute. The petitioner filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, for setting aside the ex parte decree on the plea that she was never duly served and a fraud has been played upon her. She further stated that she had sold the entire property to Malkiat Singh and Chhinder Singh vide sale deed dated 4.5.1990 for a valuable consideration of Rs. 80,000/- and, since then, the vendees are in lawful possession of the property. She came to know about the ex parte decree on 24.2.1992 from the Kanungo and that is why she filed an application under Order 9 Rule 13, CPC, on 8.5.1992.
(3.) RESPONDENT filed reply to the application and denied the allegations. The trial Court framed the following issues from the pleadings of the parties :- 1. Whether ex parte decree dated 8.8.1991 is liable to be set aside on the grounds mentioned in the application ? OPS. 2. Relief. ;