Punjab & Haryana High Court Refuses to Set Aside Ex Parte Decree After Exhaustion of Remedies by Co-Defendants; Holds Order IX Rule 13 Cannot Be Used to Reopen Finalised Proceedings

Case Name: Kuldeep Singh v. Mishri Lal and Others

Date of Judgment: 12 January 2026

Citation: CR-8957-2025

Bench: Hon’ble Ms. Justice Nidhi Gupta

Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court dismissed the civil revision petition filed by defendant No.1 seeking setting aside of an ex parte judgment and decree under Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The Court held that a defendant cannot bypass the statutory appellate hierarchy and directly invoke revisional jurisdiction to challenge an ex parte decree. It was further held that once co-defendants have unsuccessfully challenged the decree up to the Supreme Court and the decree has been executed through court process, a subsequent application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC is not maintainable and cannot be used to reopen issues that have attained finality.

Summary: The revision petition arose from an ex parte judgment and decree passed by the Civil Judge (Junior Division), Ludhiana, decreeing a suit for possession by way of specific performance of an Agreement to Sell. Following the decree, defendants No.2 to 5 sought to challenge it by filing a delayed appeal along with an application for condonation of delay, which was dismissed on the ground that the defendants had admitted knowledge of the decree.

Execution proceedings were initiated, objections were dismissed, and a sale deed was executed in favour of the decree-holder through court process. Civil revision filed by defendants No.2 to 5 was dismissed as infructuous by the High Court, noting that no lis survived after execution of the sale deed. The Special Leave Petitions preferred thereafter were dismissed by the Supreme Court.

It was only thereafter that the present petitioner, defendant No.1, filed an application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC read with Section 151 CPC, asserting that he had gained knowledge of the decree and alleging collusion on the part of other defendants. The said application was dismissed by the trial court, leading to the present revision.

The High Court held that the revision was not maintainable, as the petitioner had neither filed a statutory appeal against the ex parte decree nor challenged the order dismissing his Order IX Rule 13 application before the appellate forum. The Court reiterated that when a statutory remedy of appeal is available, it must be exhausted before invoking supervisory jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution.

On merits, the Court observed that the decree had already been subjected to challenge by co-defendants up to the Supreme Court and had attained finality. The petitioner could not be permitted to reagitate the same issues indirectly by invoking Order IX Rule 13 CPC. The Court further held that allegations regarding insufficiency of reasoning in the ex parte judgment were untenable at this stage and that due process of law cannot be circumvented.

Decision: The civil revision petition was dismissed. The ex parte judgment and decree and the order rejecting the application under Order IX Rule 13 CPC were upheld.