Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Set Aside Ex Parte Decree in Specific Performance Suit; Holds Application Under Order IX Rule 13 CPC Barred by Limitation and Suppression of Material Facts

Case Name: Sultan Singh v. Darshan Singh and Others
Date of Judgment: 16 December 2025
Citation: CR-7021-2025
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Virinder Aggarwal

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed a civil revision petition and upheld concurrent orders rejecting an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC for setting aside an ex parte judgment and decree. The Court held that once clear and unequivocal knowledge of the decree is established, limitation begins to run from that date, and a belated application filed beyond the statutory period cannot be entertained. The Court further held that suppression of material facts regarding prior knowledge disentitles a litigant from any discretionary or equitable relief.

Summary: The revision petition arose from an ex parte decree passed in a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell agricultural land. The petitioner sought to assail the decree by contending that he was never duly served with summons and that the ex parte proceedings were the result of fraud and collusion. An application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC was filed seeking setting aside of the decree, along with a prayer for condonation of delay.

The trial court, after appreciating the pleadings and evidence, recorded a categorical finding that the petitioner had acquired knowledge of the ex parte judgment and decree much earlier than claimed. This conclusion was drawn from the undisputed fact that in a separate suit for specific performance filed by a third party, the respondent had moved an application for impleadment and had annexed a copy of the very judgment and decree sought to be set aside. The petitioner was represented by counsel in those proceedings and actively participated therein.

The plea that knowledge was acquired only through bank officials was found to be unsubstantiated and false. The courts below held that the petitioner had deliberately suppressed the true date of knowledge and had approached the court with incorrect pleadings. On this basis, the application was held to be barred by limitation, and the delay was found to be neither explained nor condonable.

The High Court affirmed these findings, holding that the limitation under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is mandatory and begins from the date of knowledge of the decree where service is disputed. Once such knowledge is established on record, equitable considerations cannot override statutory limitation. The Court also reiterated that revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to re-appreciate evidence or disturb concurrent findings absent perversity or jurisdictional error.

Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed. The orders passed by the Civil Judge (Senior Division) and the Additional District Judge rejecting the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC were upheld. The Court clarified that its observations were confined to the procedural issue and would not affect the substantive rights of the parties in any other proceedings.