- (1.) The respondent secured an ex parte decree against the defendant (Jagtar Singh), now the petitioner, on 5th May, 2001. The ex parte defendants filed an application on 11th March, 2005 under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC for setting aside the ex parte judgment/decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana in case titled 'Punjab Kaur and others v. Baljit Kaur and others' in Civil Suit No.806 of 1995. When the decree was obtained ex parte defendants, the petitioner had a right, title and interest in the suit property but was a minor when the decree was passed. He asserted his rights against the ex parte decree on attaining the age of majority within the period of 3 years after attaining 18 years of age. However, the date of birth of the petitioner became a fact-in-issue seriously disputed by the decree holder. The petitioner provided proof of his date of birth being a certificate issued by the Local Registrar of Births and Deaths, Municipal Committee, Khanna. The lower Appellate Court found it per se admissible and returned a finding of fact that appellant Amandeep Singh attained majority on 21st January, 2005. The application under Order 9 Rule 13 CPC was filed on 18th March, 2005 i.e. within a period of 2 months and 16 days on attaining the age of majority. The lower Appellate Court has held that the application was within limitation period prescribed for challenging the ex parte decree by the appellant. The lower Appellate Court has also held that the impugned judgment was made and decree dated 5th May, 2001 passed by the lower Court was drawn without complying with the provisions of Order 31 Rules, 3, 4 and 5 of the CPC inasmuch as the lower Court failed to appoint a guardian or next friend in the suit for the minor defendant.
(2.) The order passed by the learned Additional District Judge, Ludhiana on 14th May, 2014 setting aside the ex parte decree is challenged in this petition by the plaintiff ex parte decree holder.
(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner has argued that the respondents have not disclosed in their application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the CPC the exact date when the minor attained majority and therefore the lower Appellate Court erred in accepting the birth certificate a copy of which is placed on record of this petition as Annexure A-9 at page 93 of the paperbook. A perusal of the birth certificate shows that it records the date of birth as 2nd January, 1987 with birth registered on 5th January, 1987. In the certificate, the applicant's name has been recorded as Amandeep Singh son of Balwinder Singh son of Sohan Singh. The name of the mother is recorded as Baljit Kaur. To my mind, learned Appellate Court committed no error in accepting the birth certificate of Amandeep Singh as prima facie genuine since it came from the record of the office of the Chief Registrar, Births & Deaths, Punjab in the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Punjab issued by the local competent authority. In the application filed for setting aside the ex parte decree, it has been pleaded that the applicant did not know of the pendency of the case titled 'Punjab Kaur and others v. Baljit Kaur and others' and came to know of it only on 14th February, 2005 when the opposite party being a legal heir of Punjab Kaur tried to get the mutation of the suit land sanctioned in their favour from the Court of Sub Divisional Magistrate-cum-SDO (Civil), Payal where they entered appearance through their counsel on 14th February, 2005 in the mutation proceedings. Since an objection was taken by the opposite party that the application lacked material particulars of the date of birth of the applicants, they moved a miscellaneous application in the civil appeal for permitting them to produce and prove on record the birth certificate of both the applicants and their ration cards in which they have been shown to be the son and daughter of late Balwinder Singh. This application was filed on 26th March, 2014 which has been allowed after contest and receiving reply from the opposite side.;