Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Set Aside Ex Parte Proceedings After Five-Year Delay; Holds Order IX Rule 7 CPC Subject to Limitation and Equity

Case Name: Varinderjeet Singh (wrongly mentioned as Varinder Singh) v. Joginder Pal Narula and Others

Date of Judgment: 9 January 2026

Citation: CR No.23 of 2026

Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the civil revision petition challenging rejection of an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, holding that relief under Rule 7 is discretionary and equitable, not a vested right. The Court held that Article 137 of the Limitation Act, 1963 applies to applications under Order IX Rule 7 CPC and that an unexplained delay of more than five years, despite proven prior knowledge of the proceedings, disentitles a party from relief. The Court further held that service through an adult family member was valid in the facts of the case.

Summary: The petitioner, defendant No.2 in a civil suit pending before the Additional Civil Judge (Senior Division), SAS Nagar (Mohali), was proceeded against ex parte on 10 January 2020. An application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC seeking recall of the ex parte proceedings was filed on 2 September 2025 and was dismissed by the trial Court on 10 November 2025. Aggrieved, the petitioner approached the High Court by way of revision.

The petitioner contended that he was never personally served and that summons were allegedly received by his father, with whom relations were strained. It was also argued that the process server failed to comply with Order V Rule 15 CPC and that no limitation period applies to applications under Order IX Rule 7 CPC.

The High Court examined the record and found that summons were sent both through registered post and ordinary process pursuant to an interim injunction order dated 27 November 2019. The Court noted that the summons contained the correct address and father’s name and that the process server had specifically reported that the petitioner’s father accepted service after speaking to the petitioner himself.

More significantly, the Court relied on a police complaint and a compromise deed dated prior to 10 January 2020, signed by the petitioner, wherein he expressly acknowledged pendency of the civil suit and agreed not to raise construction over the suit property. This, according to the Court, conclusively established the petitioner’s knowledge of the proceedings well before he was proceeded ex parte.

On the legal issue, the Court held that although no specific limitation period is prescribed under the CPC for an application under Order IX Rule 7 CPC, Article 137 of the Limitation Act applies to all applications before civil courts unless expressly excluded. Relying on Town Municipal Council, Athani and the Constitution Bench judgment in Kerala State Electricity Board v. T.P. Kunhaliumma, the Court held that a residuary limitation period of three years governs such applications. A delay of over five years, coupled with lack of bona fides, was held to be fatal.

The Court further observed that the suit had progressed to the stage of defendants’ evidence and that reopening proceedings at such an advanced stage would unsettle concluded proceedings and reward deliberate delay. No jurisdictional error or perversity was found in the trial court’s order.

Decision: The revision petition was dismissed. However, in order to balance procedural discipline with principles of natural justice, the petitioner was permitted to participate in further proceedings before the trial court without reopening concluded proceedings. The petitioner was not permitted to file a written statement or lead evidence.