MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR, J. - (1.) THE matrix of the facts & material, culminating in the commencement, relevant for deciding the instant revision petition and emanating from the record, is that, petitioner -plaintiff Sita Ram son of Madan Gopal, sole proprietor of M/s Madan Gopal Sita Ram, commission agent (for brevity "the plaintiff -firm"), has instituted the civil suit for a decree of recovery of Rs. 73,274/ - against respondent -defendant Sarmel Singh (for short "original defendant") (since deceased). Initially, the original defendant contested the suit, filed the written statement, stoutly denied all the allegations contained in the plaint and prayed for dismissal of the suit.
(2.) ALTHOUGH , during the pendency of the suit, the original defendant died on 16.12.2000, but, still, the ex parte proceedings were ordered against him on 8.10.2002, without impleading his LRs by the trial Court. Subsequently, even, the trial Court passed the ex parte judgment and decree dated 12.9.2003 (Annexure P4) for recovery of the pointed amount along with interest against the original defendant (dead person). As soon as, Baljinder Kaur, widow and other legal representatives of original defendant, came to know about the ex parte decree, then, they have filed the appeal (Annexure P2), to set aside the ex parte order dated 8.10.2002 and ex parte judgment & decree dated 12.9.2003. They have also moved an application for impleading them as LRs of original defendant. The plaintiff refuted their claim, filed the reply, inter -alia denying all the allegations contained in the application and prayed for its dismissal.
(3.) IN the wake of pleadings of the parties, the appellate Court framed the following issues: - 1. Whether the ex parte judgment and decree dated 12.9.2003 passed by Sh.Ishwar Dutt, the then ld. Civil Judge (Jr. Divn.), Fatehabad is liable to be set aside ?OPA 2. Whether the applicants have no locus standi to file present application?OPR 3. Whether the application is barred by law of limitation?OPR 4. Whether the applicants have not come to the Court with clean hands?OPR 5. Whether the Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain and try the present application?OPR ;