Subash Chand vs Smt. Bati And Others on 12 January, 2009

Civil Revision No.4602 of 2007                          -1-

                                      ****


IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH

                         Civil Revision No.4602 of 2007
                         Date of decision : 12.1.2009

Subash Chand                                            .....Petitioner

                  Versus

Smt. Bati and others                                    ...Respondents

                               ****

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND

Present:    Mr.Manoj Kumar Sood, Advocate for the petitioner.

            Mr. I.K.Mehta, Senior Advocate with
            Mr. M.S.Kohli, Advocate for the respondents.


S. D. ANAND, J.

The plea filed by the petitioner under Order 9 Rule 7 C.P.C.

was declined by the learned Trial Judge without frame of issues and

affording an opportunity to parties to have their say in the context of

sufficiency or otherwise of the ground for the requested setting aside of the

exparte order dated 23.4.1999.

In a plea of this category, the Trial Court is ordained to afford

the parties an opportunity to adduce evidence in support of their respective

pleas. It is, thereafter, only that a Court would be able to decide upon the

sufficiency or otherwise of the ground on the basis whereof applicant/party

applies for the setting aside of the exparte order. The adoption of the

indicated course by the learned Trial Court was not in order.

The petition shall stand allowed. The impugned order dated

23.4.1999 is quashed. The learned Trial Court is directed to dispose of the
Civil Revision No.4602 of 2007 -2-

****

application under Order 9 Rule 7 of the C.P.C. within fifteen days from the

date on which the matter comes up before it. For that purpose, the parties

(through their learned counsel) are directed to appear before the learned

Trial Judge on 19.1.2009. The issues in the context shall be framed by the

Trial Court on 19.1.2009 itself. Thereafter, the parties shall be afforded one

adjournment each to adduce evidence in support of their respective

contentions. If the summoning of an official witness is required, the party

requesting for the purpose aforementioned, shall be entitled to dasti

process. However, that party shall not be entitled to raise a plea for

another adjournment just because it is not able to serve the official witness,

for one reason or the other. The grant of this rider would allay the

apprehension of the respondents that relevant civil suit pertaining to the

year 1999 would further get delayed.

Disposed of accordingly.

January 12, 2009                                      (S. D. ANAND)
Pka                                                       JUDGE

Note: Whether to be referred to Reporter : Yes/No