Punjab-Haryana High Court
Sunil vs Ranbir Singh on 11 November, 2024
Author: Vikas Bahl
Bench: Vikas Bahl
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146511
CR-6562-2024 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
***
CR-6562-2024
Date of decision : 11.11.2024
Sunil
... Petitioner
Versus
Ranbir Singh
... Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL
Present: Mr.Gautam Kaile, Advocate and
Mr.Ashwani Kumar Antil, Advocate
for the petitioner.
VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL)
1. This is a Civil Revision Petition filed under Article 227 of the
Constitution of India for setting aside the impugned order dated 09.10.2024
(Annexure P-8) vide which the application moved by the petitioner for
setting aside the ex-parte order dated 03.08.2018 (Annexure P-1) has been
dismissed.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the
petitioner was proceeded against ex-parte on 03.08.2018 and thereafter had
moved an application on 16.03.2022 for setting aside the ex-parte order
dated 03.08.2018 and has submitted that the said application with respect to
the relief of setting aside the ex-parte order dated 03.08.2018 has been
dismissed, although the petitioner has been permitted to join the
proceedings. It is stated that in case ex-parte order dated 03.08.2018 is not
1 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146511
set aside, then irreparable loss would be caused to the petitioner, inasmuch
as the petitioner has not even filed written statement. It is prayed that the
petitioner be granted one opportunity to file written statement. It is
submitted that since the plaintiff has already examined witnesses, thus, an
opportunity be granted to cross-examine the witnesses of the plaintiff and
the proceedings be stayed till the present revision petition is not decided as
the case is now fixed before the trial Court for 13.11.2024 for final
arguments.
3. This Court has heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and
has perused the paper book.
4. It is not disputed that the petitioner had appeared before the
trial Court in the suit filed by the respondent for declaration and possession
on 14.02.2018 and did not file written statement despite availing three
opportunities till 03.08.2018 and thereafter the case was fixed for plaintiff's
evidence on 17.10.2018, 30.01.2019, 11.04.2019, 09.07.2019, 13.11.2019
and 27.04.2020. It is also not in dispute that the application for setting aside
the ex-parte order dated 03.08.2018 was filed on 16.03.2022 after a delay of
more than 3 years and 7 months and there were several dates in between the
abovesaid two dates. The learned trial Court had with respect to setting
aside the ex-parte order observed that in case, the petitioner wanted to
relegate back to the position in which he was when he was proceeded
against ex-parte, then, he should have moved the application on the next
date of hearing and was also required to assign good cause for his previous
non-appearance, then, he may upon such terms could have been heard in the
2 of 3
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:146511
suit as if he had appeared on the date fixed earlier. It was observed that
since no application was filed on the next date and the petitioner continued
to not appear before the trial Court and also offered no good cause for his
previous non-appearance, thus, he should not be relegated back to the
original position on the said aspect. Reliance was placed by the trial Court
on the judgment of Ram Lal Kathuria vs. Shiv Kumar Sharma reported
as 1999 VI AD (Delhi) 217. The trial Court had however permitted the
petitioner to join the proceedings from the date of passing of the order. The
said order is in accordance with law and also has been passed keeping in
view the provision of Order 9 Rule 7 CPC. Admittedly, the application had
been filed after a delay of more than 3 years and 7 months under Order 9
Rule 7 CPC and in between several dates had been given and even no good
cause for non-appearance on the said dates had been mentioned, thus, the
impugned order is legal and deserves to be upheld and the present revision
petition being meritless, deserves to be dismissed and is, accordingly
dismissed.
(VIKAS BAHL)
JUDGE
November 11, 2024.
Davinder Kumar
Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
3 of 3
