IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB
AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.
C.R. No. 5969 of 2009. [O&M]
Date of Decision: 10th November, 2009.
Pritam Singh Petitioner
through
Mr. Naveen Daryal, Advocate
Versus
Krisha Respondent
through
Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL)
This Revision Petition is directed by the defendant against
the order dated 19.8.2009 passed by the Civil Judge [Senior
Division], Karnal whereby an application moved by the petitioner –
defendant to set aside the ex-parte proceedings dated 27.4.2005,
has been dismissed.
The respondent – plaintiff has filed a suit for possession
by way of specific performance of the agreement to sell dated
30.7.2003 against the petitioner – defendant. Upon receiving notice,
the petitioner appeared and filed his written statement. Thereafter, as
he claims, the matter was compromised in the village and the
respondent – plaintiff had given an undertaking to withdraw the suit.
However, he did not honour the undertaking, though the petitioner
remained under a bona-fide impression as if the suit had been
withdrawn and he did not appear before the Civil Court. He was
accordingly proceeded against ex-parte on 27.4.2005. As soon as
the petitioner – defendant came to know, he applied for setting aside
the ex-parte proceedings dated 27.4.2005 but his application has
been dismissed by the trial Court.
Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
Though the suit is pending from last over five years,
nevertheless the plaintiff’s evidence is yet to start. Since the
petitioner – defendant has already filed the written statement, no
serious prejudice shall be caused to the respondent – plaintiff in case
the petitioner is allowed to join the proceedings as no evidence has
been produced by the respondent – plaintiff so far. Only some issues
might have to be re-framed by the trial Court.
For the reasons afore-stated, the revision petition is
allowed; the impugned order dated 19.8.2009 is set aside and the
application moved by the petitioner – defendant to set aside the ex-
parte proceedings is accepted and consequently the order dated
27.4.2005 is also set aside, however, subject to payment of costs of
Rs.3000/- to the respondent – plaintiff.
Disposed of. Dasti.
November 10, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE
