VINOD K.SHARMA,J - (1.) THIS revision petition is directed against the order passed by the learned courts below dismissing an application moved by the petitioners under Order 9 Rule 13 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure for setting aside ex parte decree passed by in favour of the plaintiff-respondent.
(2.) A suit titled as 'Mohinder Singh v. Uttam Singh and others' was decided by the court of learned Sub Judge II Class, Amritsar on 24.10.1985. Said judgment was ex parte. The petitioner moved an application under Order 9 Rule 13 of the Code on the ground that the petitioners were never served at any point of time in those proceedings. It was the case of the petitioners that summons were never served upon them and no registered covers were tendered by the plaintiff- respondent. It was claimed that the plaintiff/respondent in connivance with some of the officials of Process Serving Agency managed to obtain a false report regarding their service with a view to obtain ex parte judgment and decree against them. It was claimed that the plaintiff-respondent also concealed material facts from the learned court for getting the above said impugned decree at their back which is evident from the fact that the plaintiff respondent did not get the decree executed till 9.10.1997 i.e. almost for a period of 12 years. During this long period the decree was kept closely guarded secret and that is why the petitioners never came to know about the same.
(3.) IT was claimed by the petitioners that they have already set up their factory at the disputed site and they are fulfiling their export commitments by working therein for the last so many years. The petitioners also raised loan from Punjab Financial Corporation. It was claimed that the petitioners came to know about the said judgment and decree only on 22.8.1998 when they visited the court premises in connection with their other cases and after making inquiries the application was immediate filed on 29.8.1998. The petitioners also claimed that as per basic principle of law rights of various parties should preferably be adjudicated on their merits and technicalities of law should not come in the way of justice. It was also claimed that the absence of the petitioners was neither intentional nor willful and therefore, they should be allowed to defence the suit and ex-parte judgment and decree be set aside.;